a new approach to rural public transport

A New Approach toRural Public Transport

November 2008

Commission for Integrated Transport55 Victoria StreetLondon SW1H 0EU

Web site: www.cfit.gov.uk

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2008, except whereotherwise stated

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or mediumfor non-commercial research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. Thisis subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyrightsource of the material must be acknowledged and the title of the publication specified.

For any other use of this material, apply for a Click-Use Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm, or by writing to the Information Policy Team, Office of Public Sector Information,Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail [email protected]

This is a value added publication which falls outside the scope of the Public Sector InformationClick-Use Licence.

Copies of the Report and supporting documents can be downloaded from the CfIT web siteor by contacting CfIT:

55 Victoria StreetLondon SW1H 0EU

E-mail: [email protected]

or online via www.cfit.gov.uk

ISBN: 978 1 906581 49 7

Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least 75% recycled fibre.

Contents

Foreword 7

Executive summary 9

Chapter 1: Introduction 11

Chapter 2: Government policy 15

Chapter 3: The challenges of public transport in rural areas 19

Chapter 4: What we found in the study 24

Chapter 5: The economics of TaxiPlus schemes 30

Chapter 6: Why don’t we have more TaxiPlus services here? 42

Chapter 7: Why do we think more TaxiPlus services are a good idea? 45

Chapter 8: Conclusions and recommendations 47

Annex 1: Summary of case study scheme information 51

Annex 2: The demonstration pilot proposition 55

Annex 3: About the Commission for Integrated Transport 57

References 58

3

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank all the members of CfIT’s Working Group for many insightfulcomments regarding the evidence we presented to them over the course of this project.In addition, we would like to thank the numerous stakeholders who informed theevidence review carried out for this work.

DisclaimerAlthough the technical advice provided by Mott MacDonald and Dr Corrine Mulley was commissioned by the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT), the findings and recommendations within these reports are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the views of CfIT. CfIT does not guarantee the accuracy,completeness, or usefulness of that information; and it cannot accept liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidancethose documents contain.

A NEW APPROACH TO RURAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT4

TablesPage

Table 2.1 Comparison of the regulatory framework for different local publictransport operation 17

Table 3.1 Sources of bus service support (2007/08) 20

Table 5.1 Cost of providing taxi service schemes compared to cost of providingconventional bus services 40

FiguresFigure 4.1 Case study sites (UK/mainland Europe) 24

Figure 5.1 Scale of Operation: number of passenger trips per annum,by geographical scale of operation 32

Figure 5.2 Contribution of fare income and subsidy to total cost: schemesranked by gross cost 33

Figure 5.3 Proportion of total cost met by subsidy (schemes ranked by gross cost) 34

Figure 5.4 Average fare per journey (schemes ranked by gross cost) 35

Figure 5.5 Cost per passenger trip (ranked by annual passenger trips) 36

Figure 5.6 Subsidy per passenger journey by scheme (ranked by annualpassenger trips) 37

Figure 5.7 Subsidy cost/total per journey for deep rural schemes 39

Photograph acknowledgementsApex/Theo Moye Front cover

Paul Salveson 22

Apex/Theo Moye 25

David Ovenden – F11 26

Apex – F5 26

Cumbria County Council 28

A NEW APPROACH TO RURAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT 5

Foreword

Public transport has enjoyed a renaissance in many urban areas in recent years, butoutside large towns and cities its quality remains patchy. Many rural communities havepublic transport services that are infrequent, finish early in the evening and do not run atall at weekends. Connections between buses and trains are erratic, and examples ofintegrated ticketing are the exception rather than the rule.

This problem affects large numbers of people – a fifth of the English population (9.5 millionpeople) live in rural areas. It causes significant hardship, with the evidence suggestingthat low-income rural households are often forced into buying and running a car whenthey cannot really afford to do so. Rising fuel prices make it even more important to offera better alternative to car use for these rural households.

But the problems caused by poor rural public transport are wider than this. Lack ofa decent transport service undermines the economies of rural areas, since it is moredifficult for people to access jobs and services. It also has environmental consequences,resulting in high levels of car use compared to urban areas, and greater per capitacarbon emissions from transport.

In its recent paper Towards a Sustainable Transport System (DfT, 2007b) the Governmenthighlighted the need for new thinking on rural accessibility, to help meet its goals of qualityof life and accessibility for all, and to tackle the challenge of finding carbon-friendly waysof meeting rural transport needs.

In our role as an advisory body to Government, therefore, the Commission for IntegratedTransport (CfIT) has examined how innovative transport schemes, using shared taxis,might be developed on a large scale to meet rural accessibility needs. In doing this, wehave looked at examples from the UK and abroad. We have found that there are examplesin mainland Europe of schemes operating on a large scale, which we believe could beadopted here. The evidence from these schemes suggests that it should be possible toachieve significant economies of scale, so that it would be possible to develop a ruraltransport network that is more cost-efficient and environmentally-efficient than thecurrent system, and better meets rural people’s needs.

It is noteworthy that the European schemes generally require less subsidy, as aproportion of total costs, than the UK schemes – an unusual situation, since it is morecommon for European public transport to receive higher subsidies than public transportin the UK. This suggests that there are clear opportunities to make current expenditureon rural public transport ‘work harder’, so as to deliver a better service.

We have coined the term ‘TaxiPlus’ to describe the type of service we envisage asnecessary to meet the challenges laid down by the Government in Towards a SustainableTransport System, and we have recommended a large-scale demonstration TaxiPlusscheme as the next step. We see this as a way of demonstrating what is possible, andevaluating the costs and benefits. If good value for money can be demonstrated, webelieve this would provide a justification for expansion to other areas.


We do not believe that there are any insurmountable regulatory or legislative problemsthat would prevent our developing these schemes, though there are some specificissues in relation to taxi licensing and the funding system for rural transport that willneed to be resolved.

We would like to thank the members of our working group for their help in producingthis Report, and we would also like to thank everyone who provided information to assistin our research.

Lynn Sloman Peter HendyChair, Working Group Chair, CfIT


Executive summary

Our analysis examines the role that taxis and other demand-responsive transportservices could have, alongside more conventional public transport, in meeting thetransport needs of rural dwellers. The origin of this work was a study commissioned byCfIT in 2002 (LEK Consultancy, 2002) which suggested taxi services could be a morecost-effective alternative to bus services in deep rural areas.

Patterns of movement in rural communities are often too dispersed to be handledefficiently by conventional public transport and, as a result, these kinds of transporttend to require high subsidies to remain in operation.

We believe the UK would benefit from demand-responsive transport schemes similar tothose that have developed in the Netherlands and Switzerland. Our research has shownthat these regional and national operations have lower subsidy costs per trip than themore locally-organised schemes currently operating in the UK. We believe that theeconomies of scale benefits achieved in these countries could also be achieved in the UK.

The types of schemes operating in the Netherlands and Switzerland typically use a fleetof small vehicles to provide shared transport to passengers who pre-book. In somecases, the service operates on a fixed route and at a fixed time but in a location or ata time of day when conventional bus services would not be viable. In other cases, theservice is door-to-door. Pre-booking can generally be made up to an hour before travel.Hours of operation are commonly from early in the morning until late in the evening,seven days a week. Ticketing is integrated with conventional public transport, andservices are designed to connect with buses and trains.

While they operate within a national framework, the Dutch and Swiss schemes aregenerally managed at a regional or sub-regional level. For example, the licensing systemfor providers of what is known as ‘small-scale collective transport’ in the Netherlandsis national, so that providers need only register once in order to be able to operateanywhere in the country. A single provider operates a small number of call centresthat take bookings from passengers anywhere in the country. Contracts for small-scalecollective transport services are then let by the various provincial administrations.

Within the UK, the Government’s Local Transport Bill sets out a framework for sub-regional co-ordination of transport planning that may in future make it easier to managedemand-responsive transport services on a regional or sub-regional scale – for exampleacross several counties. This would help achieve the economies of scale shown by themainland European schemes.

However, there are some barriers to the expansion of demand-responsive services thatneed to be resolved. First, there is reluctance on the part of local authorities and the taxitrade to take full advantage of the opportunities that are available under current legislation.


Second, taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing outside London is the responsibilityof district and unitary councils. This is seen as working against the development of largefirms with the capacity to run sizable operations of the type seen in mainland Europe.The law on out-of-area operation by taxis and PHVs is both complex and controversial.Case law has established, for example, that a PHV can accept a booking entirelyoutside the area in which it is licensed provided that the driver, vehicle and operator’slicence have all been issued by the same authority. However, the basis of the licensingsystem – and the way that the industry in general sees itself – is one of locally basedregulation and operation within a defined local area. There is also the argument thatdistrict level licensing divorces this function from the wider considerations that are theresponsibility of local transport authorities.

Third, certain streams of public subsidy (eg Bus Service Operators’ Grant, (BSOG)) havea distorting effect on the economics of certain types of demand-responsive transportschemes provided by commercial taxi firms (who are ineligible for BSOG). If demand-responsive transport schemes as seen in the Netherlands example are to become abigger part of the picture in this country in future, it will be necessary to have a consistentapproach to subsidy for all forms of public transport.

We support the Government’s efforts in tackling accessibility and quality of life outlinedwithin the recent Department for Transport policy statement Towards a SustainableTransport System (TaSTS) (DfT, 2007b). However, we believe the aspirational goals setwithin TaSTS will not be realised unless the planning and decision-making for publictransport services is shifted to an administrative level that can benefit from the economiesof scale achieved in mainland Europe. We believe this research to be a valuablecontribution to the further development of the Government’s transport strategy.

We have coined the phrase ‘TaxiPlus’ to refer to the form of taxi-based public transportservice we envisage: a fleet of small vehicles that provide shared transport to passengerswho pre-book.

Our recommendations are summarised below and include both immediate and long-termways of generating greater take-up of TaxiPlus schemes within the current legal framework.

■ Our first recommendation is that central Government should consider the funding of alarge-scale demonstration pilot. The scheme should be at the level of an entire county.

■ Our second recommendation is that central and local Government should considerthe licensing of taxi operators at a higher geographical level, either at county or regionallevel, than currently undertaken.

■ Our third recommendation is that central and local Government must work moreclosely with taxi operators to develop new relationships and exploit existing opportunities.

■ Our fourth recommendation is that central Government review how public subsidygoing into rural public transport provision can be best applied to ensure a level playingfield among potential operators.


Chapter 1: Introduction

CfIT’s interest in rural transport1.1 In 2002, CfIT examined the use of public subsidy in the bus industry. That research

considered the cost-effectiveness of traditional bus services in rural areas and concludedthat in deep rural areas, standard and experimental bus services have higher subsidycosts per passenger than taxis (LEK Consulting, 2002).

1.2 Further examination was recommended to determine the funding, regulatory andmanagement issues associated with operating a taxi-based scheme, and the implementationbarriers that would need to be overcome.

1.3 In 2007, CfIT began a programme of work examining how the travel needs of ruralcommunities were being met by public transport services in both the UK and mainlandEurope. Our focus widened from taxis to include any service that either complementedor replaced conventional bus services. We were keen to understand the quality andcost-effectiveness of a range of schemes and the scope for transferring those schemesacross rural areas.

Our aim1.4 We set out to understand whether it might be possible to provide better public transport

services in rural areas than is generally the case today. We were particularly interested inhow taxis and other non-conventional services might be used to provide a step-changein the availability and quality of public transport services for the general public in ruralareas, whilst still achieving value for money.

1.5 Our interest in opportunities to improve rural public transport chimes with a recent seriesof reports from the Commission for Rural Communities, which highlighted the urgentneed to find new solutions to the transport problems faced by rural communities(Commission for Rural Communities, 2008b).1

Scope of the CfIT study1.6 Our study included examples from the UK and mainland Europe, and examined the

economics of the schemes, the costs to passengers, levels of public subsidy, and thewider social and environmental benefits.


1 Five thinkpieces in collaboration with TRL, MVA, ITP, University of West of England, Universities of Plymouth and Aberdeen.

1.7 The scope of the work included:

■ taxis (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles) in their roles as adjuncts to orreplacements for conventional public transport,2 registered local bus services, bothcommercial, and subsidised by local authorities, Community Transport (CT) andspecial needs transport, and brokerage schemes;

■ the combination of services best suited to meeting needs in different types of rural areas;

■ issues of social inclusion, the needs of disabled people, and people on low incomes; and

■ the combination of public transport services that might have the greatest potential toachieve sustainability, including lower emissions by better matching vehicle size todemand, and influencing the travel choices of rural car drivers.

Working methodology1.8 This project is based upon a number of sources, including desktop research of publicly

available data and primary research involving case studies and stakeholder consultation.The following pieces of evidence are available from the CfIT website (www.cfit.gov.uk).

■ Think piece on the role of taxis and private hire vehicles in rural areas (Mulley, 2007).This report, based on existing literature, includes an analysis of the current licensingrules and practices for local bus services, CT, and special bus and taxi licences andvarious shared vehicle schemes. The report proposes a framework in which the ruralbus market could function more efficiently and be in a better position to meet theneeds of transport-disadvantaged groups in rural areas.

■ The Role of Taxis in Rural Public Transport (Mott MacDonald, 2008). CfIT commissionednew research to examine taxi-based services in operation in rural areas. This analysisincluded a literature review on taxi services, case studies of taxi-based schemes fromthe UK and mainland Europe, and consultation with operators, funders and stakeholders.The complete Mott MacDonald evidence base is available from the CfIT website.

■ Think piece on the role played by alternative forms of transport in rural areas to ‘meetthe gap’ between taxis and conventional buses in rural areas (Mulley, 2008). Thisreport, based on existing literature, supplemented by interviews with representativesfrom the not-for-profit sector, includes an analysis of the current licensing rules andpractices for flexible transport services. The report specifically considers the role of thenot-for-profit sector in providing wider access in rural areas, and considers differentbrokerage options.

1.9 This report represents the views of the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT), whichin 2007 established for this task a Working Group of CfIT Commissioners as well asother relevant individuals (see Annex 3 for a list of the Working Group members).


2 These roles could include door-to-door bookable shared taxis; taxis running on bus routes as a supplement to busservices; the taxi element of train–taxi schemes; taxis that are booked to meet passengers at bus stops; and ‘‘conventional’’taxi operation where the taxi is booked on an individual basis, with the cost met by the passenger or through ataxicard scheme.

Glossary1.10 The following list provides a brief definition of terms frequently referred to within the body

of this report.

■ Car sharing: An arrangement whereby two or more people share a car journey –either as part of an organised scheme that matches drivers and passengers, or aninformal arrangement of family, friends or colleagues who agree amongst themselvesto share car journeys on an ad hoc basis.

■ Community transport (CT): Transport services provided to groups who have difficultyusing conventional services because those services may be infrequent, unavailable, orphysically inaccessible. CT services offer door-to-door transport or opportunities foronward travel through connections with conventional bus and rail. These transportservices tend to be operated by not-for-profit community groups, though local authorities,health authorities and schools/colleges can all provide community transport services.

■ Demand-responsive transport (DRT): Any form of transport where day-to-dayservice provision is influenced by the demands of users. In the UK these tend to besmall-scale, for a defined region or specific community of people, and be door-to-door. This can include services offered by taxis, private hire vehicles (mini-cabs),buses, or community transport schemes.

■ Hackney carriage: A public transport vehicle with no more than eight passengerseats, which is licensed to ply for hire. This means that it may stand at ranks or behailed in the street by members of the public.

■ Private hire vehicle (PHV): A vehicle that must have no more than eight passengerseats and requires advance booking by customers through an operator (may not plyfor hire in the street).

■ TaxiPlus: Large-scale shared taxi-based operations, involving a fleet of small vehicles,which, in addition to core operation, operate a bookable, shared, demand-responsivepublic transport service. The service utilises a centrally operated call centre to takepassenger bookings, integrating with local bus, rail, and other transport networks toensure connectivity and seamless travel.

Evidence1.11 Our evidence is drawn from a range of sources and, despite our best efforts to put data

and figures on as common a basis as possible, there will inevitably be some inconsistencies.While we may not be able to claim robustness for all estimates, particularly the financial databetween schemes within the UK and mainland Europe, we think, nevertheless, that it ispossible to make comparisons and draw broad conclusions from the evidence available.


1.12 In undertaking this analysis, our review of published literature highlighted some gaps inexisting data and understanding:

■ Better information collection is necessary on the financial costs and benefits of schemes.This needs to be collected on a consistent basis so that funding bodies and operatorscan consider the business case more effectively.

■ Long-term research is crucial to our understanding of the cost-effectiveness of schemes.

■ Research needs to examine the attitudes and behaviours of transport users in order toget the best value.

■ Research needs to have an international component.

Structure of this report1.13 Notwithstanding the limitations highlighted above, we believe there are some key insights

into the role that transport which is responsive to demand can play in meeting thetransport needs of rural communities. These insights and recommendations are setout in this report as follows:

Chapter 2: Government policy

Chapter 3: The challenges for rural public transport

Chapter 4: What we found in the study

Chapter 5: The economics of TaxiPlus schemes

Chapter 6: Why don’t we have more TaxiPlus services here?

Chapter 7: Why do we think more TaxiPlus services are a good idea?

Chapter 8: Conclusion and recommendations


Chapter 2: Government policy

Towards a Sustainable Transport System2.1 In the last fifty years, an exponential growth in people’s mobility has played a significant

role in economic and social advances. It has also stimulated a growth in personalmobility expectations.

2.2 There is recognition that this growth in mobility is eroding some of the advantages it hasbrought. For instance, the transport sector’s contribution to CO2 emissions is significantand unlikely to be resolved through technological advances alone (OECD, 1996). In ruralareas, increasing levels of car ownership have gone hand in hand with centralisation ofservices and loss of local shops, and with reduced viability of public transport. This hasresulted in the paradox of vastly increased overall mobility accompanied by pooreraccess to facilities for those rural residents who do not have access to a car. At thesame time, it has resulted in greater car mileage, and therefore greater individual carbonemissions from transport among rural dwellers as compared to urban dwellers.

2.3 We therefore need to look for ways to mitigate the negative impacts of the growth inmobility. In recent years, much attention has been focused on solutions for urban areas,but comparatively little attention has been paid to possible solutions for the 19%3 ofpeople who live in smaller settlements and rural areas.

2.4 Most recently, reflecting on the analysis of the Eddington Transport Study (Eddington,2006) and the Stern Review (Stern, 2007), the Government has published a discussiondocument, Towards a Sustainable Transport System (TaSTS) (DfT, 2007b) looking at theways in which these earlier studies’ recommendations can be translated into policy overthe short, medium and long term. TaSTS offers a clear rationale and context for ourstudy. Noting the low load factors and high carbon footprints of many rural services, itsuggests (in paragraph 3.20) that there is a need for new thinking on rural accessibilityand welcomes CfIT’s intention to study the options.

2.5 TaSTS recognises that journeys do not exist in isolation but that there are linkages not onlybetween different journeys but also between the available modes. Transport links arethus part of a system that provides end-to-end journeys in response to mobility demand.

2.6 TaSTS states in a simple framework a series of goals and challenges that need to bemet to create a sustainable transport system. Two of the five goals in particular arerelevant to rural dwellers and thus provide a rationale for this study.

2.7 Goal 4 relates to quality of life and the way in which accessing transport services (bothpublic and private) gives rise to significant benefits (eg the ability to visit friends andrelatives, the ability to access employment, jobs and other services that are necessary foran inclusive society). These activities are highly valued by individuals but come at the costof negative impacts such as noise and pollution where they involve motorised transport.


3 19% of the population (9.5 million) live in rural areas. Of these, 6% live in rural areas where the surrounding region isparticularly sparsely populated. Among those in less sparse rural areas, 47% (4.2 million) live in small towns, 37% (3.3million) in villages and 16% (1.4 million) in hamlets or isolated dwellings (www.defra.gov.uk/rural/strategy/annex_b.htm).

2.8 Goal 5 relates to the accessibility of transport for all and the desire to provide equality ofopportunity in terms of access to facilities and services, across different geographicalareas, ages and income levels.

2.9 These goals are reflected in the Challenges set out in TaSTS. Challenge 14 identifies ruralaccessibility as a problem, especially for households without access to a private car. It notesthat public transport provision can both require high subsidy and be inefficient in termsof carbon emissions, when there are low passenger loadings on services. In particular, ithighlights the need for innovative thinking (learning from best practice around Britain andabroad) on carbon-friendly ways of meeting rural transport needs.

2.10 We believe, therefore, this analysis provides a valuable contribution to the Government’scurrent deliberations on TaSTS investment options.

The legislative framework for rural public transport2.11 In rural areas (as in urban areas), current legislation allows for a wide range of types of

public transport service. These range from conventional local bus services to a range ofoptions for demand-responsive transport provided by taxi firms (either hackney carriagesor private hire vehicles) or not-for-profit operators.

2.12 Table 2.1 compares the legislative framework for the different types of public transportservice that may operate in rural areas, starting with a local bus service4 or registeredservice under the Transport Act 1985 and comparing other regulations for collectivetransport with this.

2.13 This table makes clear that the regulatory framework now offers the opportunity for avariety of vehicle sizes to provide public passenger services: all vehicle sizes (registeredservices), small or large vehicles (services operated under permit), small vehicles (restrictedbus licences), a taxi used as a bus (taxibus) and taxi/PHV sharing (from designatedplaces or by advance booking).

2.14 There are different cost implications of the different types of registration. As Table 2.1shows, services registered under most of the regulatory options are eligible for the BSOG,but this is not the case for services registered as shared taxis under Sections 10 or 11of the Transport Act 1985. Concessionary fares are a further difficulty as, with the exceptionof a local bus registration (and the Section 12 taxibus that is effectively a local busservice registration), there is no legal requirement to accept travellers on a concessionaryfares basis.

2.15 Table 2.1 demonstrates a complex institutional environment that imposes different costsand benefits on different types of operator (eligibility for BSOG, requirements to hold anoperator’s licence and whether or not drivers must be paid or be volunteers). However, tothe travelling public, the output of these services would not necessarily be distinguishableand would be viewed simply as public transport.


4 A ‘local service’ is defined as a public service vehicle (PSV) carrying passengers at separate fares where the overallroute or distance between stopping places is less than 15 miles (measured in a straight line).

A NEW APPROACH TO RURAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT 17Ta

ble

2.1

Com

par

ison

of

the

regu

lato

ry f

ram

ewor

k fo

r d

iffer

ent

loca

l pub

lic t

rans

por

t op

erat

ion

Legi

slat

ion

(Tra

nspo

rtAc

t 198

5 un

less

othe

rwis

e sp

ecifi

ed)

Loca

l ser

vice

regi

ster

edby

a c

omm

erci

al b

usop

erat

or (i

nclu

ding

LA

supp

orte

d se

rvic

es)

Com

mun

ity T

rans

port

Sect

ion

19 P

erm

it

Rest

ricte

d bu

s lic

ence

(Sec

tion

13 (3

) of t

hePu

blic

Pas

seng

erVe

hicl

es A

ct 1

981)

Loca

l ser

vice

regi

ster

edby

hol

der o

f Sec

tion

22

Loca

l ser

vice

regi

ster

edby

Tax

ibus

lice

nce

hold

er: S

ectio

n 12

Shar

ed T

axi

Sect

ion

10

Shar

ed ta

xiSe

ctio

n 11

PSV

oper

ator

licen

ce r

equi

red

(1)

Yes

No, b

ut o

nly

non-

prof

it-m

akin

gor

gani

satio

nsar

e el

igib

le

Spec

ial P

SVop

erat

or li

cenc

e: a

CPC

is n

ot re

quire

d

No, b

ut o

nly

non-

prof

it-m

akin

gor

gani

satio

nsar

e el

igib

le

Spec

ial P

SVOp

erat

or li

cenc

e

No

No

Vehi

cle

size

Any

com

plyi

ng w

ithco

nstru

ctio

n an

d us

ere

gula

tions

and

with

a Ce

rtific

ate

of In

itial

Fitn

ess

or e

quiv

alen

t(if

>9

pass

enge

rs)

Vehi

cles

car

ryin

g>

9 p

asse

nger

s.

Smal

l: 9-

16pa

ssen

gers

Larg

e: >

17pa

ssen

gers

Up to

2 v

ehic

les

< 8

sea

ts

Curr

ently

9–1

6pa

ssen

gers

. Loc

alTr

ansp

ort B

ill w

illal

so a

llow

use

of 1

7pa

ssen

ger v

ehic

les

Taxi

(hac

kney

carr

iage

) M

ax 8

pass

enge

r sea

ts

Taxi

(hac

kney

carr

iage

) (7)

Max

8pa

ssen

ger s

eats

Taxi

(hac

kney

carr

iage

and

priv

ate

hire

veh

icle

s) M

ax 8

pass

enge

r sea

ts

Type

of r

oute

Fixe

d an

d fle

xibl

e (4

)

Carr

iage

of c

lass

es o

f pas

seng

ersp

ecifi

ed o

n pe

rmit

(not

gen

eral

publ

ic) s

o ge

nera

lly g

roup

trans

port,

pre

-arr

ange

d (th

ough

may

pic

k up

and

set

dow

n at

diffe

rent

pla

ces)

.

Rout

e re

gist

ered

with

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers,

and

sep

arat

efa

res

can

be c

harg

ed to

gen

eral

publ

ic. F

ixed

or fl

exib

le re

gist

ratio

n.

Rout

e re

gist

ered

with

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers,

and

sep

arat

efa

res

can

be c

harg

ed to

gen

eral

publ

ic. F

ixed

or f

lexi

ble

regi

stra

tion.

Rout

e re

gist

ered

with

Tra

ffic

Com

mis

sion

ers,

and

incl

ude

one

fixed

sto

ppin

g po

int w

ithin

the

taxi

’s lo

cal a

utho

rity

area

. Fix

edor

flex

ible

regi

stra

tion.

Allo

ws

pass

enge

rs tr

avel

ling

toth

e sa

me

or s

imila

r des

tinat

ion

tosh

are

a ta

xi c

arry

ing

8 or

few

erpa

ssen

gers

and

pay

sep

arat

e fa

res.

Allo

ws

pre-

book

ed p

asse

nger

s to

have

dis

coun

ted

fare

s fo

r sha

ring

taxi

and

pay

sep

arat

e fa

res.

PCV

licen

cefo

r dr

iver

Yes

No fo

r sm

all

buse

s if

unpa

id;

(5)Y

es fo

rla

rge

buse

s

Yes

No Taxi

driv

erlic

ence

Taxi

driv

erlic

ence

Taxi

or P

HVdr

iver

lice

nce

Elig

ible

for

BSOG

(2)

Yes

Yes,

in a

wid

e ra

nge

of s

peci

fied

cate

gorie

s (6

)

Yes

Yes

Yes

No No

Requ

ired

to a

ccep

tco

nces

sion

ary

free

trav

el p

asse

s (3

)

Yes

No Yes

Yes

Coul

d be

elig

ible

,bu

t mig

ht n

otbe

requ

ired

toac

cept

(8)

No No

Othe

r re

stric

tions

/com

men

ts

In g

ener

al, d

river

s m

ust b

e vo

lunt

eers

, tho

ugh

may

be

paid

if d

river

lice

nce

perm

its (s

eefo

otno

te 7

6).

Loca

l Tra

nspo

rt Bi

ll w

ould

als

o al

low

<9

pass

enge

r veh

icle

s if

pass

enge

rs c

arrie

d at

sepa

rate

fare

s.

Can

also

be

gran

ted

for o

pera

tion

of o

ccas

iona

lre

gist

ered

bus

ser

vice

s us

ing

up to

two

larg

erve

hicl

es (u

p to

16

seat

s), p

rovi

ded

the

mai

nbu

sine

ss o

f the

ope

rato

r is

not c

arry

ing

pass

enge

rs (e

g a

hote

l) or

if th

e m

ain

busi

ness

is c

arry

ing

pass

enge

rs u

sing

vehi

cles

car

ryin

g fe

wer

than

eig

ht p

asse

nger

s(e

g a

taxi

or p

rivat

e hi

re v

ehic

le).

Curr

ently

, driv

er m

ust b

e vo

lunt

eer,

unpa

idbu

t with

reas

onab

le e

xpen

ses.

Loc

alTr

ansp

ort B

ill w

ould

rem

ove

paym

ent

rest

rictio

n w

here

driv

ing

licen

ce p

erm

its(s

ee fo

otno

te 7

).

A pr

esum

ptio

n th

at th

e Tr

affic

Com

mis

sion

ers

will

gra

nt li

cenc

e.Al

low

s ta

xi o

wne

r to

choo

se w

hen

to p

rovi

de

conv

entio

nal t

axi s

ervi

ce o

r bus

ser

vice

s.

Pass

enge

rs m

ust b

oard

at a

des

igna

ted

plac

e(u

sual

ly a

taxi

rank

).Di

scre

tiona

ry fo

r the

taxi

lice

nsin

g au

thor

ity,

unle

ss 1

0% o

r mor

e of

taxi

lice

nces

hol

ders

requ

est t

his.

Can

be fo

r one

-off

or fo

r reg

ular

jour

neys

Pass

enge

rs m

ust h

ave

agre

ed to

sha

re.


1 Th

e op

erat

or n

eeds

to

fulfi

l a fi

nanc

ial r

equi

rem

ent

(sho

win

g th

e ab

ility

to h

ave

liqui

d fu

nds

prop

ortio

nal t

o th

e nu

mbe

r of

vehi

cles

hel

d), h

old

a C

ertif

icat

e of

Pro

fess

iona

l Com

pete

nce

(CP

C) (

or n

omin

ate

a su

itabl

y qu

alifi

ed t

raffi

c m

anag

er),

beof

goo

d re

pute

and

dem

onst

rate

ade

quat

e m

aint

enan

ce fa

cilit

ies

(or

have

a c

ontr

act

for

mai

nten

ance

).

2 B

SO

G (B

us S

ervi

ce O

pera

tors

’ Gra

nt) i

s eq

uiva

lent

to

abou

t 80

% o

f the

dut

y pa

id o

n th

e fu

el u

sed

in p

rovi

ding

the

serv

ice;

the

ser

vice

has

to

be a

vaila

ble

to, a

nd r

egul

arly

use

d by

, the

gen

eral

pub

lic.

3 Lo

cal s

ervi

ces

are

elig

ible

for

conc

essi

onar

y tr

avel

if t

hey

carr

y th

e ge

nera

l pub

lic a

long

fixe

d ro

utes

with

spe

cifie

dst

oppi

ng p

oint

s. D

eman

d-re

spon

sive

ser

vice

s ar

e no

t el

igib

le.

4 R

egul

atio

ns (T

he P

ublic

Ser

vice

Veh

icle

s (R

egis

trat

ion

of L

ocal

Ser

vice

s) (A

men

dmen

t) (E

ngla

nd a

nd W

ales

) Reg

ulat

ions

2004

), br

ough

t in

to fo

rce

in F

ebru

ary

2004

, allo

w t

he r

egis

trat

ion

of fl

exib

le s

ervi

ces

run

on d

eman

d, a

s w

ell a

s th

ety

pica

l loc

al s

ervi

ces

with

fixe

d ro

utes

and

fixe

d st

art

and

finis

h po

ints

5 H

olde

rs o

f driv

ing

licen

ces

with

a fu

ll C

ateg

ory

B (c

ar) e

ntitl

emen

t pr

e-da

ting

1.1.

1997

may

driv

e s1

9 or

s22

per

mit

min

ibus

es –

9–1

6 pa

ssen

gers

– ir

resp

ectiv

e of

pay

men

t. W

here

the

ent

itlem

ent

date

s fro

m 1

.1.1

997

or la

ter,

this

conc

essi

on is

onl

y av

aila

ble

to d

rivin

g in

a v

olun

tary

cap

acity

(ie

not

rece

ivin

g pa

ymen

t be

yond

exp

ense

s).

6 R

egul

atio

ns th

at c

ame

into

forc

e in

Apr

il 20

02 e

xten

ded

BS

OG

to S

ectio

n 19

jour

neys

, whi

ch c

arry

pas

seng

ers

who

are

who

llyor

mai

nly

peop

le o

ver

60, d

isab

led,

in r

ecei

pt o

f inc

ome

supp

ort

or jo

bsee

ker’s

allo

wan

ce, p

eopl

e ‘s

uffe

ring

a de

gree

of

soci

al e

xclu

sion

’, pe

ople

who

‘bel

ieve

tha

t it

wou

ld b

e un

safe

for

them

to

use

any

publ

ic p

asse

nger

tra

nspo

rt s

ervi

ces’

and

care

rs o

r pe

rson

s un

der

16 a

ccom

pany

ing

any

of t

he c

ateg

orie

s lis

ted

(Com

mun

ity T

rans

port

Ass

ocia

tion

(200

3)).

7 Th

is is

bei

ng e

xten

ded

to p

rivat

e hi

re v

ehic

les

unde

r th

e cu

rren

t Lo

cal T

rans

port

Bill.

8 W

here

a s

ervi

ce is

elig

ible

for

conc

essi

onar

y tr

avel

, the

ope

rato

r ha

s to

acc

ept

a va

lid p

ass

pres

ente

d on

the

veh

icle

(s14

5 (1

) TA

2000

), bu

t s9

9(1)

of T

A 1

985

prov

ides

for

an a

utho

rity

to r

elea

se t

he o

pera

tor

from

his

obl

igat

ion,

or

he c

anap

peal

to

the

Sec

reta

ry o

f Sta

te t

o be

rel

ease

d un

der

s99(

2) o

f the

TA

198

5 an

d/or

s15

0(3)

TA

200

0.

Chapter 3: The challenges ofpublic transport in rural areas

Rural residents have a right to a fair level of access3.1 Securing fairness in the level of access to transport services is enshrined in disability

legislation to ensure disabled people’s inclusion in society and good quality of life.However, outside of this identifiable group, other groups are also at risk of exclusionand disadvantage because of their lack of access to key services (eg work, education,healthcare and social activities).

3.2 Social exclusion and poverty exist in both urban and rural areas but, in rural areas, therisk of becoming ‘transport disadvantaged’ is much greater. Rural areas pose particularproblems for public transport as a result of low densities of population and because manykey services are time sensitive in their access (eg jobs, education and healthcare, forexample), which makes conventional public transport expensive to provide. Recognisingthat rural communities are entitled to a reasonable level of transport access is thereforefundamental to providing a good quality of life and mitigating poverty and social exclusion(Social Exclusion Unit, 2003).

There are specific problems for public transport in rural areas3.3 In England, outside London, some 80% of bus services are provided on a commercial

basis. Operators have the commercial flexibility to decide on the extent and frequency ofthese services. Local authorities can support services that are not commercially viable tomeet specific local needs, and the remaining 20% of services are provided in this way,with support from public subsidy.

3.4 Public transport in rural areas has a range of demand and supply side characteristicsthat set it apart from urban-based operations. On the supply side, it can be difficult tooperate a profitable commercial service, due to the dispersed and low population andstrong competition from the car. Where this has led to the withdrawal of commercialservices, a combination of rising operating costs within the bus industry and constraintson public sector funding has limited the ability of many local authorities to subsidisereplacement services to the same level of frequency and coverage.

3.5 On the demand side, the requirements of rural dwellers to access key services are timesensitive (access to jobs, access to healthcare, for example) but require different timewindows for access (journeys to work at each end of the day, healthcare visits duringthe day, for example). Older people, young people, families, working people and disabledpeople all have different needs. In rural areas where the total demand can only supporta low service frequency, it may be difficult for a conventional public transport service tomeet these different accessibility needs.


3.6 As a result, bus services in rural areas have contracted over the last 20 years, withoperators taking the commercial decision to concentrate on more lucrative urban markets.Decisions on supported services are left to local authorities but, as budgets are squeezed,local authorities have had to prioritise subsidy to services meeting criteria related tosocial need (with access to employment usually having highest priority).

3.7 There are also wide disparities in public transport service levels among different ruralareas. These are partly due to different levels of rurality, but also a result of differentcommitments from local authorities to subsidise services. This may result in rural mobilitybeing something of a ‘post code lottery’.

3.8 However, there are some statistics that buck the trend of service decline. In 2002–05,children in rural areas travelled twice as far as children in urban areas, and were morelikely to travel by private coach or school bus than children in urban areas (DfT, 2007a).In addition, there appears to have been some improvement in the availability of busservices in rural areas in recent years. For instance, between 1998–2000 and 2006,the proportion of households in rural areas within 13 minutes’ walk of an hourly or morefrequent bus service5 increased from 45% to 54%.

3.9 One reason for this improvement is the availability over this period of new fundingstreams for rural transport (Table 3.1). In particular, the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG)was introduced in 1998 with initial funding per annum of £32.5m per annum. CurrentRBSG funding is £56m (2007/08).


5 The minimum criterion for the government’s bus availability indicator for England.

Table 3.1Sources of bus service support (2007/08)

Bus Service Operators Grant 413m

Rural Bus Subsidy Grant 56m

Local Authority Secured Services (estimated) 330m

Concessionary fares 725m

London Funding 650m

Challenge and Kickstart 11m

Total (revenue) 2,185m

Capital spending via local authorities 300m

Total Spending 2,485m

Source:

DfT (2008).

Local Bus

Service Support

– Options for

Reform:

Consultation

Paper.

3.10 A further positive trend in recent years is the variety of innovative rural transport services,including demand-responsive services, which have been trialled through Rural BusChallenge and Kickstart funding. To date, most of these have been limited in scope,and not all have survived beyond the initial grant funding, but some schemes (such asNorthumberland’s Phone and Go) have provided valuable experience, which the localauthorities concerned have built on in developing other demand-responsive services.

Our aspiration: a more flexible approach3.11 While acknowledging these positive developments, we feel that it remains the case that

rural public transport services in many areas fall far below the standard for what ruraltransport in Britain should be like.

3.12 Low population density in rural areas and the variety of different requirements ofindividuals for travel mean that a more flexible approach is required. This might entailconventional timetabled bus services on main corridors where there are high passengernumbers, supplemented by smaller vehicles operating only on demand in quieter areasor at off-peak times. This would be more environmentally friendly than using conventionalbuses on routes or at times with few (or no) passengers.

3.13 These demand-responsive or flexible transport services would be part of a co-ordinatedapproach to rural transport. By a co-ordinated approach, we mean that road-basedpublic transport services would be designed to connect with each other and with trainservices. Ideally, passengers would be able to purchase one ticket (or use a smartcard) fortheir entire journey, even where the journey involved changing modes. This co-ordinatedpublic transport network would be supplemented by initiatives such as car-sharing schemes(to match people for regular car trips, such as the trip to work, enabling a saving indriving costs), and car clubs (which would provide access to a car for short-term hireof a few hours).6


6 Car clubs are generally more developed in the UK in urban areas. However, European experience – especially inSwitzerland – suggests that car clubs can also work well in certain rural areas, such as market towns and larger villages.

Photo by Paul Salveson showing a co-ordinated approach to rural public transport: buses connect with trains in rural Germany.

3.14 The demand-responsive transport services that we envisage will require new ways ofenabling passengers to make their needs known (the booking system) and a way ofmatching passenger demands to appropriately sized vehicles.

3.15 Door-to-door services may be the most effective solution in areas of dispersed population,where a passenger would otherwise have to travel a considerable distance to accessthe service. However, for many rural dwellers (for example, those living in small markettowns or villages on main road corridors) an on demand service operating along a coreroute could provide a cost-effective improvement over conventional services – forexample, through an extension of operating hours.

3.16 Matching vehicles to passengers is an important step in increasing the efficiency ofpublic transport. Where passengers request journeys at the same time of day, it shouldbe possible to combine trips, increasing the loading of a vehicle and bringing significantcost efficiency. This suggests that differently-sized vehicles might be better at differenttimes of day. A system that matches the available vehicle stock to the request for journeysvia a system of vehicle brokerage would minimise costs and maximise efficiency.

3.17 Managing requests from passengers and matching passenger demand to vehicle sizeimplies that a new approach to the overall planning of rural services may be needed sothat the provision of a service to a passenger is co-ordinated with the decision to choosea vehicle of appropriate size.


3.18 Although the focus for CfIT’s research was rural areas, the more flexible approachdescribed here also has potential to deliver better transport services in suburban andinter-urban areas where conventional services cannot provide for different accessibilityneeds viably (whether commercially or with subsidy).

Services could come from a range of operator types3.19 The more flexible services that we envisage could potentially be provided by a range of

operators, including bus operators, taxi firms, community transport operators, and othernot-for-profit social enterprises. There will be no ‘one size fits all’ model that will besuitable for every rural area.

3.20 In areas where the best solution involved several operators, it would be necessary toestablish a co-ordinating agency to run a call centre, take bookings from passengers,and match these with the appropriate operator and vehicle. (These different functionsdo not all necessarily have to be carried out by the same body, but this is probably thesimplest approach.) The co-ordinating agency could sit within the local authority (manyalready operate call centres for other purposes) or could be another agency, which mightbe specially created.

3.21 Where a co-ordinating agency was responsible for both passenger bookings and vehicleallocation, it would be logical for this agency’s role to include a brokerage/co-ordinationscheme to improve vehicle utilisation. Such an agency could increase co-ordinationacross special needs transport, transport to healthcare and school transport services.At present, these transport services commonly operate in separate ‘silos’, with differentagencies independently managing their own passenger bookings and vehicle fleets. Abrokerage/co-ordination scheme could enable services for specific groups and specificjourneys (eg older people and children, travel to hospitals, day centres and schools) tobe provided within the context of an integrated public transport service, providing betterutilisation and cost efficiencies.

3.22 Although the main focus of CfIT’s current work has been on the possible role of taxifirms in providing an expanded network of flexible transport services, we were alsointerested in whether CT groups might play a role, either as vehicle operators or asco-ordinating agencies.

3.23 Our discussions with CT operators and the Community Transport Association suggestthat CT groups are very diverse, reflecting the way in which they have emerged overtime, with rural CT groups typically interacting more with the commercial operators intheir area. Some CT groups have already made a strategic decision to generate moreincome through social enterprises, and these groups might be interested in having abroader role in public transport provision. However, other CT groups may be morereluctant to expand, perceiving this as a diversion from their core purpose of providingtransport for older and disabled people. The Disabled Persons Transport AdvisoryCommittee (DPTAC) has also expressed to us the view that it would be undesirable forCT services to expand too far beyond their core role, if this was to the detriment ofservices for disabled people.


Chapter 4: What we foundin the study

4.1 Our analysis is based upon a comprehensive review of relevant literature and in-depthcase study analysis of taxi-based schemes within mainland Europe and the UK. Figure4.1 provides a summary of the characteristics of each scheme analysed, and furtherdetail on each scheme can be found in Annex 2.


Figure 4.1Case study sites (UK/mainland Europe)

Rural Wheels, Cumbria, UK

Taxi-management scheme for rural parts of County using smartcard payment

Treintaxi, Netherlands

National scheme: shared taxis providing access to train stations

Publicar, Switzerland

National scheme: Flexible on-demand minibus to provide links to public transport for rural areas and small towns

Regiotaxi, Netherlands

Regional case study of a nationally managed network: shared taxi for general accessibility

Anruf Sammel taxi, Germany

Sub-regional scheme: fixed, semi-fixed and flexible supplementary public transport providing access to key services

North Sutherland, UK

Single scheme: discounted taxi service in sparsely populated area to provide key transport links

Connect2, Wiltshire, UK

County-wide scheme: bookable public transport using bus, taxi and CT

Devon Fare Car, Devon, UK

County-wide: timetabled shared taxis within defined rural areas

Billilinks, West Sussex, UK

Single scheme: shared taxi service on two specified routes around small town

Taxitub, France

Sub-regional scheme: on-demand taxi-based service with defined corridors and stops, providing access to conventional public transport

Taxi-based schemes4.2 Considerable differences emerged between mainland European and UK schemes that

could not be accounted for simply by differences in the regulatory aspects of theinstitutional frameworks.

4.3 Mainland European schemes benefited from a commitment to funding at a national leveland a robust planning framework at a regional level. They have been implemented withinthe context of an integrated network of public transport, and with an understanding thatrural accessibility needs should be met by that public transport network.

4.4 The larger scale of the mainland European schemes appeared to provide attractivecommercial opportunities for their operators, suggesting that scale is important to ‘unlock’the investment decisions of operators and increase their willingness to participate.

4.5 In contrast, each of the UK schemes was under the jurisdiction of a single local authority,and funding for schemes was considered as part of the decision to subsidise servicesfalling outside the commercial network. Local authorities in particularly rural areas, suchas Cumbria, are aware that the subsidy of services that run for part of the journey overroute sections that are commercially registered could lead to the commercial servicebecoming unviable. This is likely to make planning and delivery of flexible schemesconsiderably more difficult.

Photo courtesy of Apex/Theo Moye. Margaret Prouse helps a passenger into a fare car, a public transport service for rural

areas in Ashwater, Devon.


4.6 UK schemes are normally targeted at satisfying a restricted set of needs, often in priorityto an agreed set of criteria, because constraints in funding mean that not all needs canbe satisfied.

4.7 These policy differences are reflected in service design and in the quality of serviceoffered to passengers. UK schemes typically offer only limited hours of operation andare not generally integrated with onward journeys. They have significantly longer advancebooking requirements than their mainland European counterparts (eg 24 hours or longer,as compared to about 1 hour for the mainland Europe schemes).

4.8 Mainland European schemes are regarded as permanent from the outset, whereas manyUK schemes were implemented using Challenge funding streams with a finite end-date.Upon the cessation of these funds, local authorities have to decide whether continuedfunding still presents good value for money in relation to other spend in subsidisingpublic transport. UK schemes are therefore often seen as transitory experiments, withconsequent poorer passenger perceptions.

4.9 Many UK taxi-based schemes are unable to use consistent branding, because theyoperate in the territory of more than one taxi licensing authority. This reduces visibilityand hence limits public awareness of the availability of the service. Public awareness isalso associated with the length of time that a taxi-based scheme has been in operation:this may provide part of the explanation for the higher passenger figures in mainlandEurope where the chosen case studies for our research were more mature.

Pictures by Apex and David Ovenden: Devon Fare Car service leaflets


4.10 In the selection of case studies for our research, it was not difficult to find nationally orregionally co-ordinated examples of successful schemes in mainland Europe. In the UK,only one county-wide scheme was found (Wiltshire), although a second scheme, RuralWheels in Cumbria, became county-wide in its coverage in 2008. The larger scale ofoperation in mainland Europe means that taxi operators are willing to dedicate vehiclesto the flexible transport service, whereas in the UK rural taxi operators see flexible transportschemes as an infill to their core work, which is usually the transport of schoolchildren.The way taxi operators in the UK view flexible transport schemes as an add-on to theircore business causes two problems: the vehicles used tend to be whatever is available,which may or may not be suited to the flexible transport scheme, and hours of operationare commonly limited to an off-peak period.

An introduction to TaxiPlus schemes4.11 TaxiPlus schemes are characterised by being large-scale, involving a fleet of small taxi

vehicles which, in additional to their normal core service, operate a bookable, shared,demand-responsive public transport service. The service utilises a centrally operated callcentre to take passenger bookings, integrating with local bus, rail, and other transportnetworks to ensure connectivity and seamless travel.

4.12 Experience in mainland Europe demonstrates that TaxiPlus schemes do work. Thedifferences between the mainland European and UK schemes appear to relate to adifference in the geographical level at which service delivery is planned, leading to differentscales of operation. The planning of services at regional or sub-regional level in mainlandEurope allows the provision of permanent taxi-based flexible transport schemes thatoperate over a larger area than in the UK and for longer hours. The implementation ofTaxiPlus services as one part of an interconnecting web of train services, conventionalbuses and pre-bookable services enables people to make public transport journeys inrural areas efficiently and at reasonable cost. In the next chapter, we look at the economicsof the taxi-based schemes.


How a TaxiPlus scheme might work: a passenger perspectiveMr and Mrs Jones live in a small village on a main road ten miles from the nearestmarket town. Before the introduction of TaxiPlus in their county, they did have a busservice, but it was infrequent and the timing was inconvenient, so that they eitherhad just 40 minutes to do their shopping, or had to wait 4 hours for a bus home.There were no buses in the evenings or on Sundays, and none of the busesconnected with the trains on the rural branch line. Not surprisingly, most people inthe village had given up on the bus service and either drove or took lifts. The olddouble-deck buses often only carried one or two people, or even ran empty.

There was only one taxi firm in the area, based in the market town, and at the timesMr and Mrs Jones wanted to use it they often found it was unavailable because allthe drivers were busy with the school run.

The new TaxiPlus service brought a huge improvement. The service runs along themain road every hour, but it only operates if someone in Mr and Mrs Jones’s village– or one of the other villages along the main road – has contacted the bookingcentre. It is timed to connect with trains at the rail station.

The booking centre takes reservations over the phone or the internet frompassengers using TaxiPlus services throughout the region. This particular bookingcentre is run by a social enterprise that grew out of a community transport initiative,but the pattern varies and in some regions the booking centre is run by a largecommercial bus operator.

Photo by Cumbria County Council. Mrs Dunn pays for Airbus service using a smartcard.



Mr and Mrs Jones have to phone at least an hour before they wish to travel. As soonas they get through, the operator knows from their phone number that they areregular users, and can check that they would like to be picked up from their usualpick-up point. This particular service runs on a fixed route, although it can divert ashort distance from the route to pick up or drop off people with walking difficulties.Some other services run by TaxiPlus have completely flexible routes, covering a zoneor area.

When the TaxiPlus service arrives, Mr and Mrs Jones pay the driver a fare, which isabout the same as normal bus fare. The service picks up three other people who havealso pre-booked. A couple of miles along the road it picks up two people waiting at abus stop. They are visitors to the area, but the phone number and times of theTaxiPlus service are displayed at every bus stop and they had called by mobile phonea few minutes earlier. Because the TaxiPlus was running anyway, the operator wasable to tell them that it would be able to pick them up.

Since the taxi licensing system was changed, there are more taxi firms operating inthe area. Most of them have contracts with the TaxiPlus booking centre. This meansthere is quite a wide choice of vehicles, so it is possible to book an appropriate typeof vehicle for each trip. For example, if only a few passengers wish to travel, theoperator will book a four-seater taxi, but if more people are travelling a larger ten-seattaxibus will be used. The system can also cater for passengers’ special needs – forexample, some older people prefer a ‘saloon’-type car because it is easier to get inand out.

These preferences are all recorded on the booking centre’s database. The bookingcentre has taken over several local authority and NHS contracts for schools transportand special needs transport. It is also liaising with a number of local charities andother organisations to encourage them to use its transport services rather than buyingand running their own vehicles. It is finding that, by co-ordinating a range of differenttransport needs, it can provide a more attractive and flexible service for passengers.

TaxiPlus has proved very popular. Mr and Mrs Jones’s service now runs from 7am until10pm every day, with the hours extended to midnight on Friday and Saturday nights.Passenger numbers have risen fourfold compared to the old bus service. The servicehas made it easier for young people in the village to reach college and get jobs, and itmeans that Mr and Mrs Jones’s son, who is on a low income, has decided he doesn’tneed to run a car any more.

Chapter 5: The economics ofTaxiPlus schemes

Costs of operation and subsidy of TaxiPlus schemes5.1 An understanding of the costs of operation is crucial to the discussion of why rural

transport in mainland Europe is better served by flexible taxi-based schemes thanthe UK.

5.2 Our research (Mott MacDonald, 2008, Ch 4) provided information from the operation ofa number of different schemes. Whilst significant care was taken to present data in aconsistent form, it should be noted that schemes provided data for different time periods(so comparisons between absolute values must be indicative) and the breakdownbetween categories of data may not be consistent.

5.3 For the mainland European schemes, our research found TreinTaxi data covering thewhole of the national scheme. For PubliCar, another national scheme, our researchcollected limited data at the national and for the sub-regional level in the area of Vaud,but this combination allowed the sub-regional costs to be estimated. The data for ASTwere taken from a sub-regional scheme in the Miesbach area. Similarly, data for RegioTaxiwere taken from two sub-regional schemes, although we also had limited informationcollected at the national level. TaxiTUB is a sub-regional scheme, and the dataencompassed the whole operation.

5.4 For the UK schemes, our research investigated three case studies where taxi-basedservices were managed at the county level (Devon Fare Car, Rural Wheels (Cumbria) andConnect2 (Wiltshire). Devon Fare Car operated services in 11 areas, and Rural Wheelsoperated services in two areas, but with plans, now implemented (September 2008) toextend to county-wide operation. The data we collected for Devon and Cumbria coveredall their services. In Wiltshire, our research provided data for four of the 12 services inoperation across the County.

5.5 A common difficulty for our research was the inability of scheme managers of themainland European schemes to provide us with financial and other information. Weunderstand that the regionally co-ordinated and national schemes often share overheadswith other public transport activities, so the breakdown of costs is difficult. We alsofound it difficult to secure reliable patronage data for some of the mainland Europeanschemes. The UK schemes appeared to have a better overview of their costs andrevenues and, in many cases, how their performance fed into the local authority’sdecisions for subsidy. This was helpful for our research. However, the level of reportingrequired for UK taxi-based schemes was identified as onerous by many operators.


5.6 Three key themes emerged from our analysis of the economics of the case studyschemes. First, the case study schemes in mainland Europe are generally bigger, in termsof passenger trips per annum, than those examined in the UK. Second, the mainlandEurope schemes typically meet a higher proportion of their costs through the farebox andrequire lower subsidy per passenger than the UK schemes. And, finally, the economicsof the European schemes and the larger UK schemes is such that they require a subsidyper passenger trip that is quite moderate, given the difficulties of providing any form ofpublic transport service in areas of low and dispersed population. We elaborate on eachof these points below.

European schemes are generally larger than UK schemes5.7 Figure 5.1 shows the number of passenger trips per annum in each of the case study

schemes. TreinTaxi, which serves the areas around 38 rail stations across the Netherlands,provides 2.2 million passenger trips per annum. This makes it by far the largest singlescheme. For the other mainland Europe case studies, we obtained data at the sub-regional level (even where, as in the case of Publicar and Regiotaxi, they are part of alarger national initiative). PubliCar Vaud provides 112,500 passenger trips per annum.RegioTaxi KAN is of a very similar scale, with 113,000 passengers per annum. TaxiTubhas 42,000 passengers per annum, and AST Miesbach is rather smaller at 17,000passengers per annum.

5.8 Amongst the UK case studies, the largest is Connect2 Wiltshire, with 25,000 passengersper annum, then Devon Fare Car (about the same size as AST Miesbach, at 17,000passengers per annum). Rural Wheels is smaller (5,000 passengers per annum). Theremaining UK schemes, North Sutherland Taxis and Billilinks, are much smaller, at 1,800and 350 passengers per annum respectively.

5.9 Thus, the largest county schemes in the UK are at, or approaching, the size of thesmaller sub-regional schemes in mainland Europe.

5.10 In our search for case studies, we aimed to include the largest UK schemes that wewere able to identify, and we were satisfied that there were no other UK schemes ofcomparable scale to Connect 2 Wiltshire and Devon Fare Car. Thus, this difference inscale between UK and mainland European schemes appears to be genuine, and not anartefact of our case study selection. It may in part be explained by the fact that theEuropean schemes are older, having been established between 1990 and 1997, andhave therefore had longer to grow than the UK schemes, which began in 2002 or later.However, it also seems likely that the planning framework within which the Europeanschemes have been delivered is more favourable – a theme to which we will return.



Pas

seng

er t

rip

s p

er a

nnum

(mill

ions

)

0

TreinTaxi

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Regiotaxi PubliCar TaxiTUB AST Connect2Wiltshire

National scheme Sub-regional scheme County/multiple schemes Single scheme

DevonFare Car

RuralWheels

NorthSutherland

BilliLinks

2,200,000

113,000 112,50641,982 17,350 25,234 17,332 5,477 1,785 348

Pas

seng

er t

rip

s p

er a

nnum

0

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000


DevonFare Car

RuralWheels

NorthSutherland

BilliLinks

113,000 112,506

41,982

17,350

25,234

17,332

5,4771,785 348


DevonFare Car

RuralWheels

NorthSutherland

BilliLinks

113,000 112,50641,982 17,350 25,234 17,332 5,477 1,785 348

Figure 5.1Scale of operation: number of passenger trips per annum,by geographical scale of operation

European schemes typically require a lower subsidyper passenger5.11 In general, the bigger scale of operation of the mainland European schemes tends to be

associated with lower subsidy requirement, as shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.3. Subsidiesare typically under 40% of gross scheme costs in the European case studies, except forRegioTaxi, where subsidy is just under 60%. By contrast, the larger UK schemes havesubsidy levels running at 60–80% of gross scheme costs, and the smaller UK schemeshave almost all of their gross cost met through subsidy.


£ m

illio

n

0

Regiotaxi(national)

TreinTaxi(national)

AST (sub-regional)

TaxiTUB (sub-regional)

Connect2(4 schemes)

DevonFare Car(county)

Rural Wheels(county)

NorthSutherland(1 scheme)

Billilinks(1 scheme)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Annual subsidy Annual fare income

£

0

AST(sub-

regional)

TaxiTUB(sub-

regional)

Connect2(4 schemes)





200,000

400,000

AST (sub-regional)


Connect2(4 schemes)





Figure 5.2Contribution of fare income and subsidy to total cost:schemes ranked by gross cost1,2

1 Regiotaxi plotted at mid-point of range of annual fare and subsidy figures.

2 Insufficient data for PubliCar.

5.12 Several explanations for this difference were considered. One possible explanation mightbe that the European schemes charged significantly higher fares than the UK schemes.However, examination of case study data on fares shows that this is not the case. Figure5.4 displays the average fare (at 2007 prices),7 ranked by gross costs, and shows that,whilst the largest scheme (TreinTaxi) does have the highest fare, the fares levels in themainland Europe and UK schemes are broadly comparable.

5.13 Another possible explanation is that the financial data from the European schemes mightnot include the full range of overheads (eg costs associated with centralised call centresused for booking trips). However, we have no evidence that this is the case and, in anyevent, the magnitude of the difference seems too large for this to be a complete explanation.


7 Fares have been adjusted by European harmonised consumer index (HCIP) for transport costs to 2007 prices(Eurostat), with the exception of TreinTaxi, where the reported fares are for 2008.

Tota

l co

st (%

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Regiotaxi(national)

TreinTaxi(national)

AST (sub-regional)


Connect2(4 schemes)




BilliLinks(1 scheme)

100

Annual subsidy Annual fare income

Figure 5.3Proportion of total cost met by subsidy (schemes ranked by gross cost)1,2,3

1 Regiotaxi plotted at mid-point of range of annual fare and subsidy figures.

2 Total cost is the sum of fare revenue plus subsidy.

3 Insufficient data for PubliCar.

5.14 A third possibility – and the most likely, in our view – is that the European schemes havebeen established for longer than the UK schemes, have had more time to develop theirpatronage base (and therefore fare income) and have been able to find ways of exploitingeconomies of scale. There does seem to be some evidence to support this: in particular,it is interesting that, among the mainland European schemes, RegioTaxi, which is themost recent, also has the highest subsidy requirement. The UK schemes are all youngerthan their mainland Europe counterparts, having started in 2002 or later. It is possiblethat, as they grow, they will gain patronage and become more cost-efficient.

5.15 The mainland European schemes are likely to be achieving economies of scale in avariety of ways. In the Netherlands, we know that centralised call centres take bookingsfrom many schemes in different areas of the country, and this is likely to deliver substantialsavings. There are likely to be savings in other administrative overheads where one largeoperator runs flexible taxi-based services in several areas. There may also be savings insome costs associated with purchase and servicing of vehicles.


Ave

rag

e fa

re p

er jo

urne

y (£

)

0

TreinTaxi(national)

AST (sub-regional)


Connect2(4 schemes)





1

2

3

4

Fare per journey (Mainland Europe) Fare per journey (UK)

Figure 5.4Average fare per journey (schemes ranked by gross cost)

Costs and subsidies of European and larger UK taxi-basedschemes are moderate5.16 Figure 5.5 shows the gross cost per passenger trip for the case study schemes.

Broadly, we can say that the gross cost per passenger trip is between £2 and £10 forthe European and larger UK schemes, and somewhat over £10 for the small UK schemes.There is an exception to this, which is the AST scheme in Miesbach. The reason for thehigh costs in this scheme are not entirely clear, although one possibility is that trip lengthsin this highly rural area are much longer.

5.17 Figure 5.6 shows the subsidy per passenger journey. The broad picture is that subsidyranges from roughly £1 to £7 per passenger journey for the European and larger UKschemes, again with anomalous data for AST Miesbach. The smaller UK schemes havehigher subsidies, of over £10 per passenger journey.


Gro

ss c

ost

per

pas

seng

er t

rip

(£)

0

5

10

15

20

25

TreinTaxi PubliCar TaxiTUB Connect2 AST DevonFare Car

Rural Wheels NorthSutherland

BilliLinks

30

National scheme Sub-regional scheme County/multiple schemes Single scheme

Figure 5.5Cost per passenger trip (ranked by annual passenger trips)

Annual cost defined as the sum of the annual fare income and annual subsidy. Gross cost for PubliCar Vaud an

estimate, using national level data for Publicar.

5.18 TreinTaxi, the largest scheme for which we have data, has the lowest subsidy by asignificant margin. This may be due in part to the nature of its market: rail passengerstend to arrive at and depart from train stations at similar times, which means thatTreinTaxi load factors are likely to be better than load factors for the other case studyschemes. The low subsidies per passenger for TreinTaxi may also be a function of itsrelatively high fare and the restrictions on journey length that can be undertaken.

5.19 In summary, the evidence points to scale, both in the number of passenger trips perannum and also spatial coverage, as being an important determinant of the cost-effectiveness of flexible taxi-based schemes. The larger UK schemes, managed at acounty level, are beginning to reach a size where their costs and subsidy requirementper passenger are broadly comparable to our mainland Europe examples. By comparison,the small UK schemes are expensive. Encouragingly, the level of subsidy per passengertrip for the larger UK schemes is quite moderate, especially given the difficult territorythey serve, with dispersed populations.


Pas

seng

er s

ubsi

dy

per

jour

ney

(£)

0

TreinTaxi(national)


Connect2(4 schemes)

AST (sub-regional)





2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Subsidy per passenger (Mainland Europe) Subsidy per passenger (UK)

Figure 5.6Subsidy per passenger journey by scheme(ranked by annual passenger trips)

Insufficient data for Regiotaxi and PubliCar.

The wider economic benefits of taxi based services inrural areas5.20 The implementation of TaxiPlus services as part of the public transport mix in rural areas

can provide a range of user benefits. These include better access to employment, shopsand leisure facilities and a reduction in social exclusion.

5.21 There are also a range of non-user benefits. These include the option value of having aservice available if it were needed in the future (for example, if a person became unableto drive), and the benefit of knowing that a service is available for other family membersor certain groups in society (Institute for Transport Studies, 2006).

5.22 Additional benefits of the greater access which would be afforded to rural residentsthrough a better public transport service include the environmental benefits (eg lessnoise, lower carbon emissions) if some trips transfer from the private car.

5.23 It has not been possible to quantify these wider economic benefits in this study, andexisting appraisal processes do not provide guidance on how such benefits can becalculated. We believe that further work to assess the wider benefits of schemes of thistype is needed. We note the current revision of the Government’s appraisal frameworksfor transport schemes (NATA) does not include consideration of these benefits, andsuggest that further work to remedy this omission would be worthwhile.

5.24 The use of taxi-based services can provide environmental benefits compared toconventional bus services, both as a result of using smaller vehicles and because ajourney will only be made if a passenger requests it, reducing empty running. In largerschemes, passengers have been attracted to use services for which they had previouslyused a private car: to the extent that the taxi-based service may have higher passengerloadings than the equivalent car journey, this gives rise to environmental benefits. In low-income households, a mode switch that lessens or removes the need to own a privatecar can allow income to be better utilised.

5.25 In the UK in particular, the provision of taxi-based services as part of the public transportmix benefits rural taxi operators, who have access to additional income between what isregarded as their core operation of transporting children to and from school. In the largermainland European schemes, it is usually the case that the operation of the scheme itselfprovides the taxi operator with a viable business that is not restricted to slack periods.


Cost comparisons: flexible taxi services and conventionalbus services5.26 This study was prompted by the finding from our 2002 research (LEK Consulting, 2002).

LEK’s work suggested that, in deep rural areas, standard and experimental bus servicesrequired subsidies that were higher than the equivalent cost of providing taxis. LEKlooked at seven deep-rural bus schemes, most of which had some element of demand-responsiveness, and found a range in subsidy per passenger trip of £4.60 – £17.00.It then compared the cost per passenger for two of the bus services, Wigglybus andPlusbus, with the cost of providing an equivalent service by taxi, and suggested thatit would be possible to achieve savings of the order of 27% in each case.8

5.27 It is interesting to note that the range of subsidies per passenger of the seven deep-ruralbus schemes examined by LEK (£4.60 – £17) is somewhat higher than the range oftypical subsidies of larger taxi-based schemes in the current study. Whilst not definitive,as both the current research and the LEK study involved limited samples, this doesseem to bear out LEK’s conclusion that flexible taxi-based schemes might be morecost-effective than bus services in deep rural areas.


8 For Wigglybus, the annual cost was £297k and the cost of providing a taxi for current Wigglybus passengers wascalculated as £213k. For Plusbus, the annual cost was £59k and the cost of providing a taxi for current passengerswas calculated as £43.1k. In each case, taxi load factors were assumed to be 1.4 and annual administrative costs for ataxi-based scheme were put at £5,000. Taxi fares were based on average figures in the relevant geographical areas,which were £1.30 per mile for Wigglybus and £1.80 per mile for Plusbus.

Sub

sid

y co

st p

er jo

urne

y

0

PlusBus Wigglybus LincolnshireFeeders

Devon F1 Devon F4 Devon F5 Denby Dale(feeder)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 5.7Subsidy cost/total per journey for deep rural schemes

5.28 Within the current study, we asked case study interviewees for three of the UK casestudies whether they could estimate what would be the equivalent cost of providing aconventional bus service giving an equivalent level of accessibility (although not on-demand)as the existing flexible taxi-based scheme. Table 5.1 indicates that, for the Devon andWest Sussex schemes, the cost of providing a comparable conventional bus servicewould be considerably higher than the flexible taxi scheme. In North Sutherland, the costof providing a taxi-based service is greater than the estimated cost of a conventional busservice, but only marginally so.

5.29 While it seems intuitively plausible that flexible taxi-based services in deep rural areaswith dispersed populations will be more cost-effective than conventional buses servingthe same areas, this may not be a sufficient basis for a local authority to take the decisionto fund them. Rural local authorities will commonly use some form of benchmark of whatconstitutes an acceptable bus subsidy per passenger when making decisions aboutwhich public transport services to support. In areas with dispersed populations andlong distances between settlements, it is possible that support for a flexible taxi-basedservice would look like poor value compared to support for a conventional bus servingmore people in a somewhat more populous part of the county.

5.30 With this in mind, we were interested in the ‘benchmarks’ used by the local authoritiesin six rural areas (two of which were included in our case studies).

■ In Cumbria, the County Council is introducing Rural Wheels services in areas withsmall settlements where the provision of ‘conventional’ services would require aprohibitively high level of financial support. Officers at Cumbria County Council regardanything over £10 per head as a high level of subsidy for ‘conventional’ bus-basedpublic transport services.


Table 5.1Cost of providing taxi service schemes compared to cost of providingconventional bus services

Scheme Overall cost of providing Overall cost of providing athe case study taxi ‘conventional’ bus service inservice per annum the same/comparable area

Devon Fare Car Between £672 and £80,000£30,4501

BilliLinks – West £4,000 £143,000Sussex

North Sutherland £28,405 £24,662

1 Indicates the range of costs for providing individual Fare Car services. This provides a more appropriate comparisonthan comparing the overall Fare Care network against conventional bus services, as the scale of operation of the overallnetwork is very different from that of an individual bus service.

■ In Devon, the County Council is currently reviewing the acceptable bus subsidy perpassenger, and the proposed levels are £3.40 per passenger journey for a standard bus;£4.40 for a once a week service; and £5.40 for the last remaining link to a rural area.

■ In East Sussex, the average level of subsidy per passenger journey for supportedservices is about £3.50.

■ In Durham, the average level of subsidy for supported bus services is £1.50 perpassenger, although a few services have support levels going into ‘middle single figures’.

■ In Midlothian, subsidies range from around 40 pence per passenger trip (for a servicethat is close to commercial viability) to just under £3 per passenger trip.

■ In Lancashire, although subsidy per passenger is not currently used as an acceptableindicator of whether a service should be funded, a figure of £2 per passenger trip wasused in this way in the past.

5.31 The figures quoted above are not treated as absolute determinants of whether a serviceshould be supported by the local authorities concerned, and other factors, such associal need, also figure prominently in local decision-making. However, they do providea helpful indication that the upper limit of subsidy per passenger for conventional busservices is quite commonly in the range of about £1.50–£10.

5.32 Against these figures, the typical subsidies per passenger of £1–£7 for the mainlandEuropean and larger UK flexible taxi schemes appear to offer comparable value, suchthat large-scale TaxiPlus services in rural areas with dispersed populations might seem asensible use of public money alongside conventional bus services in more populous areas.


Chapter 6: Why don’t we havemore TaxiPlus services here?

Perceived barriers6.1 In terms of regulatory structure, there is real opportunity to provide for a greater take-up

of TaxiPlus schemes within rural areas. However, while the legislative framework doesoffer flexibility, a key obstacle is the perception and attitude of local authorities and thetaxi trade.

6.2 There are many reasons for this, including:

■ lack of awareness or understanding of the opportunities provided by current legislation;

■ unwillingness of local authorities to take wide-scale advantage of the not-for-profitsector operating under s19 or s22 permits for bus-based services;

■ the compliance costs of tendering for schemes and registering a service for taxioperators in particular;

■ taxi operators function in a cash-based environment that may not lend itself to integratingwith public transport provision;

■ the reporting requirements for reimbursement of subsidies;

■ the perceived limited level of trade that may dissuade operators from becoming involved;

■ a perception by operators that shared taxi services might be less profitable than thecurrent system; and

■ concern about engaging in anti-competitive activities.

Taxi licensing6.3 Evidence gathered throughout the course of our analysis would suggest that licensing at

district level militates against development of large firms/enterprises with the capacity torun sizable operations of the type seen elsewhere in mainland Europe:

■ the law on ‘out of area’ operation by taxis and PHVs is complex and controversial;

■ district licensing may prohibit growth of large-scale taxi operations, as a large companywould need to meet the varying requirements of every district it wished to cover;

■ vesting regulatory authority at district level may cause a lack of connectivity to transportpolicy at the county/regional level; and

■ lack of expertise in transport matters relating to the licensing of taxis at the district level.


6.4 It should be noted that the Netherlands taxi operator licensing system was both centralisedand deregulated (thus removing barriers to entry in the industry) in 2000, and this appearsto have paved the way for the introduction of the RegioTaxi network. Once licensed, taxifirms can now operate anywhere within the Netherlands.

Funding6.5 Our analysis found that current Government funding arrangements for public transport

create an uneven playing field. Bus operators are eligible for the BSOG and also receivesubstantial public money through the concessionary fares entitlement, local authoritysecured services and other forms of public subsidy. Taxi operators on the other handgenerally operate as purely commercial endeavours and therefore do not receive anygovernment subsidy. Although difficult, it is important to ensure that the legislativeframework does not distort the economics between the different forms of provision inthe market. If, as CfIT has recommended elsewhere, BSOG is reformed to an ‘incentiveper passenger’ payment,9 the Government might wish to consider extending it to coverall passenger trips on services registered with the Traffic Commissioner as a publictransport service, whether operated by a bus or taxi.

6.6 Another possible distortion to the market could be the national concessionary faresentitlement that was introduced in April 2008. This scheme provides free off-peak localbus travel for older and eligible disabled people anywhere in England. The full effectsof this on local authority finances, operator economics and overall patronage may notbe fully known for several financial cycles, though it is possible that the design of thenational entitlement acts as a barrier to more efficient local transport provision in ruralareas by maintaining the status quo, rather than looking at more innovative solutions.In particular, our evidence suggests:

■ having concessionary travel linked to a particular mode, rather than travel, means thatbus pass-holders often prefer an infrequent bus service that is free to a more flexibleand frequent alternative that they may have to contribute to;

■ a presumption by local authorities that substituting conventional bus services withalternative options might reduce their funding for concessionary fares in the future;

■ inclusion in the statutory entitlement has potentially profound implications for theeconomics and level of administration of these services and may actually discouragetheir rollout because of reimbursement implications both for operators and for thelocal authorities.

6.7 CfIT therefore believes the effects of the concessionary fare national entitlement to theeconomics of public transport operation need to be investigated further, as this maydistort efficient local decision-making and discourage change. As TaxiPlus schemesgenerate a critical mass, concessionary fares will become more of an issue. We believemore evidence will be necessary to resolve this position.


9 Incentive per passenger (IPP) is a payment to bus operators based upon passengers carried. This differs from BSOG,which is a grant paid on the basis of fuel consumed.

6.8 We finally note the status of VAT as a potential issue. The VAT rating is currently zero forvehicles designed to carry ten passengers or more, although there are specific exceptionsin relation to vehicles for disabled people and Post Office vehicles.

■ Smaller vehicles (eg taxi, PHVs, and taxibuses) need to charge VAT. However, this mayaffect fare levels, and this needs to be allowed for in any comparisons with conventionalbus operation.

■ There may be small taxi and PHV operators who are not registered for VAT at allbecause their turnover is below the mandatory threshold. This will also affect operatingcosts, as, unlike VAT registered operations, they will be unable to reclaim the VAT theypay out on the vehicle, fuel and other non-labour costs, but would need to chargeVAT on their fares.

6.9 More evidence is needed on the impact of VAT on the operating costs of TaxiPlus schemes.We are particularly concerned that the obligation to charge VAT on fares discriminatesagainst TaxiPlus services using small vehicles.


Chapter 7: Why do we thinkmore TaxiPlus services are agood idea?

7.1 Mainland European schemes have a different ethos from those in operation in the UK.In a policy environment that promotes public transport use, taxi-based schemes for ruralareas are provided as part of the overall public transport mix within an integrated network.This allows all passengers, including rural travellers, to plan and book door-to-doorjourneys, with flexible shared taxis providing direct access to local facilities and connectionsto the wider public transport network. The long hours of operation and same-day advancebooking arrangements make it easy for passengers to use the services.

7.2 In the UK, taxi-based services have historically focused on providing access to localshops and health care for rural residents who do not have a car. There is an unspokenassumption that such services will act as a ‘safety net’ for residents who lack any otherchoice. The way in which the services are conceived by using the periods of low demandfor existing taxi operators means that hours of operation are limited, often ruling out tripsto work or evening leisure trips. The schemes require longer lead times for booking thanin mainland Europe, often more than a day. UK customers are predominantly olderpeople accessing local facilities, and these passengers do receive considerable benefitfrom the services. Since integration with the wider public transport network is limited orabsent, relatively few taxi trips are the first leg of a longer public transport journey.

7.3 We think that the mainland Europe model for TaxiPlus services offers greater social andenvironmental benefits than the current UK model. These include:

■ increased mobility, and greater social inclusion, for all people who currently lackaccess to a car;

■ less ‘enforced’ car ownership amongst low-income rural dwellers who are obliged torun a car but cannot really afford to do so10 (eg as car ownership consumes more oftheir disposable income);11

■ the opportunity for existing car users to switch to public transport for some trips,reducing environmental impacts of car use; and

■ reduced carbon emissions from the use of better utilised small vehicles rather thanconventional buses on some routes and at some times.


10 The Commission for Rural Communities points out in their State of the Countryside 2007 (CRC, 2007) report that ‘inthe lowest income group [quintile] between 72% and 88% of households in hamlets and villages own a car, comparedto between 46% and 53% in towns and urban areas. This strongly suggests that a lack of accessibility is making lowincome households in rural communities run a car when they might not if they lived in areas with better transport services.’

11 Rural households in the lower income bands spend more than their urban counterparts on transport (10.0% comparedto 8.9%) (CRC,2008b).

7.4 The potential social and environmental benefits that could be achieved would beincreased if taxi-based services could be integrated into a national journey planningsystem, such as Transport Direct. This would enhance the current door-to-door mixedmode journey planning options available. However, there are technical issues involved infixing the interchange points that would be used. It would also require setting the rulesregarding when taxi services are shown (eg rather than/in addition to local bus services),and how available taxi services are identified, validated and regulated.12

7.5 Significant economies of scale would appear to be available in the provision of taxi-based services in rural areas. Thus, bigger schemes with greater spatial coverage seemable to meet a bigger proportion of their total costs via fare income, and to require lowersubsidies per passenger trip. A large-scale rural taxi-based scheme therefore offers theopportunity to:

■ provide more for the same outlay, thus increasing value for money and improving thequality of life for rural inhabitants;

■ send a strong message about the Government’s commitment to an integratedtransport system that works well, as a pre-requisite to encourage modal shift; and

■ ensure a reasonable level of mobility for all, meeting TaSTS Goal 5.

7.6 The following chapter sets out our recommendations for improving the role that TaxiPluscould have, alongside conventional public transport, in meeting the transport needs ofrural dwellers.


12 Taxi services, such as Traintaxi, which provides information about taxi and private hire firms serving all the train, tram,metro and underground stations in Britain, are already shown on travel planners, although this is as a reference setfrom railway and coach/bus stations and from airports, rather than being fully integrated in the journey plan.

Chapter 8: Conclusions andrecommendations

8.1 In this report, we have sought to examine the ability and availability of taxi services to meetthe transport demands of rural dwellers. Our analysis has included in-depth examinationof a range of taxi-based services both within the UK and within mainland Europe.

8.2 We have coined the phrase TaxiPlus to describe a large-scale taxi-based operation,involving a fleet of small vehicles, which operates a bookable, shared, demand-responsivepublic transport service.

8.3 In earlier chapters, we have identified that in mainland Europe there is a different ethosfor operating taxi-based schemes. For instance, taxi-based schemes in rural areas arepart of the public transport mix and provide opportunities to plan door-to-door journeys.

8.4 We have found that the larger scale of rural taxi-based services in mainland Europe andtheir integration into the public transport network offer several benefits, including morevaried vehicle fleets, simple call-out and booking services, and door-to-door journeyprovision. Equally, the larger scale provides cost efficiencies, enabling the provision ofbetter services for any given level of public investment.

8.5 While our analysis has found there are no insurmountable regulatory or legislativeobstacles to the development of TaxiPlus schemes in the UK, the legislative frameworkis complicated (see Table 2.1).

8.6 Our research highlights that differences in subsidy eligibility distort the economics ofTaxiPlus schemes relative to bus (including flexible bus) operation. This is a particularissue in the case of BSOG payments. Also, the requirement to offer concessionary fareson some but not all services produces confusion for passengers and uncertainty for localauthorities and public transport operators.

8.7 We note that significant amounts of public subsidy are provided to stimulate innovationand maintain public transport services in rural areas, though this has not generally beenapplied to the role of taxis. In the case of conventional bus services, successful serviceshave been pump-primed through Rural Bus Challenge funding and the Kickstart programme.This suggests innovation can be stimulated by targeted central Government funding.

8.8 We note and support the Government’s thinking within TaSTS and the Local TransportBill. We believe they provide a platform upon which taxi-based services, such asTaxiPlus, can be developed.

8.9 The Government will shortly consider investment options as part of the TaSTSimplementation process. We believe there is a strong case for Government now toconsider the role of TaxiPlus and other non-conventional public transport schemes inrealising the Government goal of accessibility.


Recommendation 1: Implement a large-scaledemonstration pilot8.10 Our first recommendation is that central government should consider the funding of a

large-scale TaxiPlus demonstration pilot. The scheme should be at the level of an entirecounty. We consider that the demonstration pilot would be easier to implement in eitherone of the planned unitary counties (Cornwall, Durham, Northumberland, Wiltshire andShropshire), or in a county where district councils imposed no quantity restrictions ontaxi licensing.

8.11 The TaxiPlus demonstration pilot should adopt a partnership approach between the localauthority and all public transport and taxi operators; be across at least a seven-year cycleto allow patronage growth to occur; and utilise a centrally operated call centre to takepassenger bookings. It should aim to develop shared taxi services to a scale comparableto that now seen in sub-regional schemes in the Netherlands and Switzerland – eg about100,000 passenger trips per year.

8.12 The demonstration pilot should be used to evaluate:

■ the circumstances in which taxi-based provision in rural areas is likely to prove acost-effective approach to service provision in the UK, particularly in relation todifferent rural areas;

■ the potential to integrate TaxiPlus services into the wider public transport network;

■ the gross cost of delivering a service of comparable quality to those in mainlandEurope, in terms of hours of operation and pre-booking requirements;

■ the subsidy costs against network benefits, social inclusion benefits, mode shiftbenefits, service improvements (frequency/quality) resulting from the change andgreater use of the wider public transport network;

■ the cost efficiencies provided by implementing brokerage of vehicles to bring togetherrelated transport funding streams (from social services, health and education, forexample); and

■ the likely costs and benefits of extending a demonstration nationally.

We believe, over the longer term, consideration should be given to extending TaxiPlusschemes nationally, to all rural areas, following the experience of the demonstration pilotand with an eye to developments in mainland Europe. There may also be the potentialto extend such schemes to some urban areas that are difficult to serve by conventionalpublic transport.

8.13 Further information on the demonstration pilot proposal is included in Annex 2.


Recommendation 2: License taxi operators at a highergeographical level than currently8.14 Our second recommendation is that central and local Government should consider

the licensing of taxi operators at a higher geographical level (at least county or regional)than at present. We believe this will enable the development of large firms or enterpriseswith the capacity to run sizable operations of the type seen in mainland Europe. We alsobelieve this will provide a strong signal to taxi operators of the opportunities for involvementin providing public transport services.

Recommendation 3: Encourage greater take-up ofexisting opportunities8.15 Our third recommendation is that central and local Government should work more

closely with taxi operators to develop new relationships and exploit existing opportunities.

8.16 Our research shows the existing regulatory regime does provide the flexibility for ruralshared taxi services to be operated, but barriers to take-up could be reduced by moreeducation of the key stakeholders. We note the Department for Transport’s best practiceguide (Brake et al., 2006) and the more recent Taxi Toolkit (North West Centre of Excellenceand Merseytravel, 2007) and feel these publications are a step in the right direction. Webelieve greater awareness of what is currently possible may encourage wider considerationof the potential role that flexible taxi services could offer to the public transport mix.

Recommendation 4: Promote a level playing field8.17 Our fourth recommendation is that central Government should review how public

subsidy going into rural public transport provision could be best applied to ensure a levelplaying field among potential public transport operators, including shared taxis.

8.18 Our research has shown that differences in eligibility for BSOG distort the economicsof TaxiPlus schemes relative to bus (including flexible bus) operation. We note DfT iscurrently consulting on options for change to the bus subsidy arrangements in Englandand in particular on reform options for BSOG. We have previously recommended thatsubsidy should focus upon passengers carried rather than mileage travelled. An ‘incentiveper passenger’ payment might be made to individual operators, or (more simply) mightbe made to agencies co-ordinating the provision of shared taxi services.


Areas for further analysis8.19 Our research also notes the following issues that require further examination:

■ The effect of the national concessionary fare entitlement to the economics of publictransport operation. The concessionary fare entitlement may distort efficient localdecision-making and discourage change.

■ A better understanding of the wider economic benefits of TaxiPlus services in ruralareas is needed. The current lack of quantification hampers the development of arobust business case for investing in these services.

■ The impact of VAT on the operating costs of TaxiPlus schemes. We are particularlyconcerned that the obligation to charge VAT on fares discriminates against flexibleservices in rural areas. Although larger vehicles (+10 people) are exempt, they maynot offer the benefits of a flexible door-to-door bookable service.


Annex 1: Summary of casestudy scheme Information

The schemes examined within the Mott MacDonald study (Mott MacDonald, 2008)included five UK-based and five mainland Europe shared taxi schemes. Further detailon each scheme is provided below, and the individual reports on each scheme can belocated on the CfIT website. Table A1.1 provides a summary of the economic informationgathered on each case study site.

Mainland European schemes

■ TreinTaxi, Netherlands – a shared taxi scheme provided by Dutch State Railways thatprovides travel to or from 38 stations across the Netherlands. Treintaxis serve an areaof approximately 8 km around each station. This includes both the town centre andsurrounding areas that range from urban to rural.

■ PubliCar, Switzerland – a fully flexible pre-booked demand-responsive minibus service,which also provides links with traditional transport services. PubliCar services areavailable in 32 regions of Switzerland. The schemes serve rural areas and small townswith between 5,000 and 10,000 inhabitants. The PubliCar scheme in Vaud was thefocus of this case study.

■ RegioTaxi, Netherlands – a shared taxi service that operates in rural areas throughoutthe Netherlands. Contracts for provision of the service are let by provincial governmentand delivered by commercial operators. The Regiotaxi scheme in Vechtdal was thefocus of this case study.

■ TaxiTub, France – an on-demand taxi-based public transport scheme serving definedcorridors and stops, operating in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region of north-east France.Its main purpose is to feed into mainstream bus service stops.

■ Anruf Sammel Taxis (AST) – a scheme operating across a number of areas ofGermany, providing a range of fixed, semi-fixed, and flexible supplementary publictransport services for urban fringe and rural communities. The regionally co-ordinatedscheme for Miesbach was the focus of this case study.

UK schemes

■ North Sutherland Taxis – an open-access, heavily discounted taxi service providingkey transport links in a sparsely populated area of the Scottish Highlands with limitedpublic transport provision.

■ Rural Wheels, Cumbria – a taxi management network providing door-to-doordemand-responsive transport within selected parts of rural Cumbria, using smartcard(as opposed to cash) payment technology.


■ Devon Fare Car – a network of timetabled shared taxi services for communities in 11areas of Devon. Each service is provided by a local taxi operator under contract toDevon County Council.

■ Connect2 Wiltshire – the new name for all bookable public transport covering bus,taxi and community transport in the county, co-ordinated and marketed by WiltshireCounty Council.

■ BilliLinks, West Sussex – a local shared taxi service providing demand-responsivetransport through two routed services for communities around the town of Billinghurst.The service is provided by West Sussex County Council and Horsham District Councilthrough the Billinghurst Community Partnership.

In addition, a less detailed examination was made of:

■ Kielder TaxiBus (Northumberland) – a community based shared minibus service thatoperates part of its service as a taxi.

■ Dengie Village Link (Essex) – a shared minibus and taxi network in Essex. The servicehas now been withdrawn and replaced by a conventional bus service.

■ Stagecoach Yellow TaxiBus (Fife, Scotland) – a commercially operated shared taxibusservice that provided express services to Edinburgh. The service has now beenwithdrawn and replaced with revised conventional bus services.

■ Neath and Port Talbot and Ceredigion Taxi Voucher scheme (Wales) – this scheme ispart of the Welsh Assembly Government’s Transport Demonstration Pilots, and providesvouchers for use on local taxis for eligible members of the public.

Table A1.1 summarises the economic information collected on each of the case study sites.


A NEW APPROACH TO RURAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT 53Ta

ble

A1.

1S

umm

ary

of e

cono

mic

info

rmat

ion

for

case

stu

dy

sche

mes

Sch

eme1

Num

ber

of

Ann

ual

Ann

ual

Ann

ual

Net

co

stC

ost

s p

erC

ost

per

Per

cent

age

trip

s p

erfa

resu

bsi

dy

cost

sra

tio

4p

asse

nger

pas

seng

ero

f co

st t

o

annu

min

com

e(£

)2(£

)3jo

urne

yjo

urne

ym

anag

er7

(£)

(net

) (£

)5(g

ross

) (£

)6

Rur

al W

heel

s5,

477

7,45

537

,970

45,6

066.

126.

938.

3283

Dev

on F

are

Car

17,3

3238

,337

114,

061

152,

398

3.97

6.58

8.79

76

Con

nect

2 W

iltsh

ire8

25,2

3469

,912

124,

508

194,

420

2.79

4.93

7.70

65

Bilil

inks

934

831

13,

689

4,00

012

.86

66.6

592

Nor

th S

uthe

rland

1,78

52,

112

26,2

9328

,405

13.4

514

.72

15.9

193

Pub

licar

1011

2,50

6N

ot k

now

nN

ot k

now

nN

ot k

now

nN

ot k

now

n9.

36–1

8.72

Not

kno

wn

Taxi

Tub

41,9

8231

9,00

013

5,00

045

4,00

01.

423.

0010

.81

30

Trei

ntax

i112.

2m3.

8m2m

5.5m

1.44

0.90

2.50

40

Reg

iota

xi12

Not

kno

wn

2.7–

2.4m

3.3–

3.6m

6.04

mn/

aN

ot k

now

nN

ot k

now

n55

–6013

AS

T1417

,350

350,

000

162,

102

532,

621

1.52

9.34

30.6

930

1 It

is im

port

ant

to n

ote

that

fina

ncia

l inf

orm

atio

n fo

r ea

ch s

ervi

ce is

pro

vide

d at

diff

eren

t sc

ales

of o

pera

tion.

For

exa

mpl

e,fin

anci

al in

form

atio

n fo

r th

e Tr

einT

axi s

ervi

ce w

as o

nly

avai

labl

e at

the

nat

iona

l lev

el, w

hils

t in

form

atio

n fo

r B

illiLi

nks

ispr

ovid

ed fo

r a

sche

me

serv

ing

a sm

all n

umbe

r of

villa

ges

clos

e to

a m

arke

t to

wn.

In e

xam

inin

g th

e pr

esen

ted

info

rmat

ion,

it is

impo

rtan

t to

ack

now

ledg

e th

e im

pact

tha

t th

e le

vel a

t w

hich

dat

a is

pre

sent

ed h

as o

n on

e’s

abilit

y to

com

pare

the

fina

ncia

l per

form

ance

of t

wo

or m

ore

serv

ices

.

2 It

has

not

been

pos

sibl

e to

gat

her

com

para

tive

data

for

each

sch

eme;

sch

eme

man

ager

s re

cord

info

rmat

ion

in d

iffer

ent

way

s an

d m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot in

clud

e al

l for

ms

of s

ubsi

dy, r

ecom

pens

e fo

r co

nces

sion

ary

fare

use

and

spo

nsor

ship

, for

exam

ple.

The

figu

re g

iven

is th

e m

ost a

ppro

pria

te in

form

atio

n av

aila

ble,

with

in th

e co

nstra

ints

pos

ed b

y th

e da

ta p

rovi

ded.

3 ‘C

osts

’ ref

er t

o al

l for

ms

of e

xpen

ditu

re m

ade

by a

sch

eme.

Eac

h of

the

cas

e st

udy

sche

mes

was

ask

ed t

o pr

ovid

ein

form

atio

n on

the

ir co

st o

f ope

ratio

n. F

or s

ome

sche

mes

the

y w

ere

able

to

disa

ggre

gate

the

cos

t of

ope

ratin

g ve

hicl

esfro

m o

ther

, ass

ocia

ted

cost

s su

ch a

s ca

ll ce

ntre

s; o

ther

sch

emes

wer

e un

able

to

do t

his.

The

refo

re, t

he t

erm

‘cos

ts’ a

sus

ed in

thi

s ta

ble

refe

rs t

o al

l cos

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

sch

eme,

incl

udin

g th

e co

st o

f sup

port

ing

adm

inis

trat

ive

elem

ents

.

4 R

atio

of c

ost

to fa

re in

com

e.

5 A

nnua

l sub

sidy

div

ided

by

num

ber

of t

rips.


6To

tal s

chem

e co

st d

ivid

ed b

y nu

mbe

r of

trip

s.

7Th

e pe

rcen

tage

of t

he o

vera

ll co

st o

f the

sch

eme

met

by

the

sche

me

man

ager

.

8C

onne

ct2

is t

he b

rand

nam

e ap

plie

d to

all

dem

and-

resp

onsi

ve s

ervi

ces

in W

iltsh

ire. F

or t

he p

urpo

ses

of t

his

rese

arch

,fo

ur s

chem

es w

ithin

the

Con

nect

2 ne

twor

k w

ere

exam

ined

and

the

se c

osts

cov

er t

hese

four

sch

emes

as

a w

hole

.Fu

rthe

r in

form

atio

n is

pro

vide

d in

the

cas

e st

udy

repo

rt fo

r C

onne

ct2.

9 Th

e in

form

atio

n ga

ther

ed fo

r B

illiLi

nks

is o

f var

ying

qua

lity,

ref

lect

ing

the

conc

erns

hig

hlig

hted

in t

he c

ase

stud

y re

port

rega

rdin

g th

e sc

hem

e’s

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

esse

s. In

form

atio

n fo

r th

is s

ervi

ce s

houl

d be

tre

ated

with

cau

tion.

Of n

ote

isth

e fig

ure

for

cost

per

pas

seng

er jo

urne

y; t

he s

chem

e al

low

s pa

ssen

gers

to

mak

e th

eir

first

trip

free

. How

ever

, the

re is

no r

ecor

d as

to

the

num

ber

of ‘f

irst’

trip

s m

ade,

and

the

refo

re t

he a

ctua

l rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n ov

eral

l ope

ratin

g co

sts

and

pass

enge

r in

com

e.

10 P

ubliC

ar w

ere

unab

le t

o pr

ovid

e an

y fin

anci

al in

form

atio

n fo

r th

eir

serv

ice

durin

g th

e ca

se s

tudy

res

earc

h pr

oces

s,al

thou

gh p

atro

nage

figu

res

for

Pub

liCar

Vau

d w

ere

colle

cted

. How

ever

, fol

low

-up

disc

ussi

ons

with

the

sch

eme

oper

ator

allo

wed

the

stu

dy t

eam

to

elic

it th

e ab

ove,

bro

ad, f

igur

es fo

r th

e lik

ely

cost

per

pas

seng

er jo

urne

y on

ana

tiona

l bas

is. N

o in

dica

tion

was

giv

en a

s to

whe

ther

the

se fi

gure

s ar

e fo

r gr

oss

or n

et c

osts

.

11 T

he in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed fo

r Tr

einT

axi c

omes

from

a n

umbe

r of

diff

eren

t so

urce

s, a

nd d

ata

are

draw

n fro

m d

iscu

ssio

nsan

d co

rres

pond

ence

with

a n

umbe

r of

org

anis

atio

ns a

nd in

divi

dual

s.

12 It

has

not

bee

n po

ssib

le t

o ga

ther

dat

a on

sch

eme

use

and

sche

me

finan

ce a

t a

com

para

ble

leve

l for

Reg

ioTa

xi.

Fina

nce

info

rmat

ion

has

been

pro

vide

d by

the

nat

iona

l sch

eme

co-o

rdin

ator

, whe

reas

pat

rona

ge in

form

atio

n on

sche

me

use

is o

nly

avai

labl

e fo

r th

e in

divi

dual

sch

eme

Reg

ioTa

xi K

AN

. It

is n

ot t

here

fore

pos

sibl

e to

gen

erat

e co

st p

erpa

ssen

ger

jour

ney

figur

es.

13 T

his

figur

e fo

r R

egio

Taxi

is b

ased

on

anec

dota

l vie

ws

expr

esse

d by

the

sch

eme

oper

ator

, rat

her

than

thr

ough

exam

inat

ion

of a

ctua

l dat

a, a

nd in

exa

min

ing

the

resu

lts o

f the

Inte

rmod

e re

sear

ch, w

hich

pro

pose

d a

com

para

ble

figur

e fo

r re

sear

ch c

ondu

cted

in 2

003.

14 S

elec

ted

info

rmat

ion

for

the

AS

T se

rvic

e ha

s be

en e

stim

ated

by

the

sche

me

oper

ator

in M

iesb

ach,

and

the

se fi

gure

sar

e on

ly fo

r th

at s

ervi

ce. T

his

acco

unts

for

the

appa

rent

sho

rtfa

ll in

the

sch

eme’

s ab

ility

to m

eet

its c

osts

and

the

disc

repa

ncy

in t

he p

erce

ntag

e of

the

cos

t of

the

sch

eme

met

by

the

sche

me

man

ager

.

Annex 2: The Demonstrationpilot proposition

As we have found, the legislative framework is flexible enough to accommodate acounty-wide demonstration. However, current institutional arrangements (eg licensing,branding, and competition between markets) are complicated and discourage aninnovative approach. We would encourage the demonstration pilot to promote anintegrated system of governance, controlled by a single authority.

Based upon the evidence we have gathered, and to maximise the potential successof the pilot, the demonstration would require the following characteristics.

■ New schemes take a significant period to generate patronage. The demonstration willrequire national funding that should be in place for a limited period, but at least sevenyears to enable patronage growth.

■ We envisage that individual local authorities (or consortia) might be invited to comeforward with proposals and business cases, and that the most promising andambitious business case would be selected. This would be similar to the competitiveapproach adopted with initiatives such as Sustainable Travel Towns or Cycling Towns,and the Challenge fund. Funding might be front-end loaded, for example to meet thecost of establishing a booking centre.

■ The demonstration would need to work under current legislation, as amended by theLocal Transport Bill currently before Parliament. The local authority (county council)will need to take the lead in the education of bus, taxi and CT operators, with districtcouncils and others, to ensure the regulatory framework does not become a barrierand to promote workable governance structures for the partnership.

■ We envisage that the pilot should provide bookable shared taxi services to the generalpublic and special services such as schools transport, transport to healthcare andspecial needs transport under the auspices of a single co-ordinating agency. Thiswould enable the evaluation of possible cost efficiencies through integration ofservices that currently operate in separate ‘silos’. In the short term, the pilot wouldfacilitate vehicle brokerage to address capacity issues. In the longer term, it wouldcreate flexibility in vehicle provision and promote higher vehicle utilisation.

■ Operation of the booking/brokerage centre might be by a social enterprise or acommercial operator, but in either case it would have clear contractual responsibilitiesto the commissioning local authority. The contract would be such as to encouragethe booking centre to build patronage and deliver a high-quality, passenger-focusedservice in the demonstration area while maximising value for money. It should besuch that the booking centre is encouraged to secure additional contracts to deliverservices elsewhere, so as to ensure its long-term viability beyond the end of thedemonstration pilot.


■ The pilot will need to consider how the concessionary fares entitlement should beapplied when passengers use a shared taxi as opposed to a conventional bus. Oneoption would be that passengers who are eligible for concessionary fares would beoffered a discounted fare (as opposed to free travel) when using a shared taxi. Thiswould reflect fairly the fact that shared taxis provide a higher quality, door-to-doorservice as compared to the conventional bus.

■ The pilot should aim to offer the high service quality seen in the best mainland Europeschemes, including: providing connections to the wider public transport network toenable onward travel; offering the ability to make bookings on the day of travel; andoffering operating hours from early morning until late in the evening, seven days a week.

■ The pilot must consider the special needs of disabled people (including issues ofaccessibility and concessionary fares entitlement). It will also be crucial that disabledpeople, along with other important passenger groups (eg elderly, youth, and peopleon low incomes), are consulted in the development of the concept to ensure appropriatematching of passenger need to service provision.

■ The booking system must enable passengers to speak to a booking agent, as manypotential passengers are elderly and may not be familiar with, or have access to,internet facilities.

■ Passengers should be guaranteed a minimum level of service within which they wouldbe expected to adjust their plans, perhaps by up to an hour earlier than desired, if thisallows higher vehicle occupancy;

■ There is strong emphasis in the mainland European schemes on links that enablejourneys beyond the boundary of the scheme. The pilot will need to explore the waysin which services can be integrated into a journey planning service, such as TransportDirect, to facilitate longer journeys.

■ Attention should be given to marketing the scheme to create a high level of publicawareness, for example through brand development; display of the booking numberon the ‘flag’ at all bus stops in the area; and development of strong publicity materialsaimed at both residents and visitors.


Annex 3: About the Commissionfor Integrated Transport

The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) is an independent advisory body,set up by Ministers in 1998. CfIT provides advice to Government on a wide range oftransport policy issues and their interface with economics, the environment, socialinclusion and best practice.

The Commission’s remit is as follows:

A) Providing policy advice via evidence based reports on:

■ future policy options, so-called ‘blue–sky thinking’ on strategic issues;

■ policy issues spanning departmental boundaries (ie environments, social etc.);

■ domestic and international best practice in transport;

■ the impact of new technology on policy options;

■ specific issues as requested by the Department for Transport.

B) Refreshing the transport debate, based on published reports and with a viewto raising the overall level of the ‘Transport Debate’ and, where possible, to buildconsensus among stakeholders.

Report Working GroupThanks go to the members of the Working Group for their time and expertise in guidingthis analysis.

Lynn Sloman, (Chair), Transport for Quality of Life and CfIT Vice ChairHelen Holland, Bristol City Council, and CfIT CommissionerPaul Godier, CfIT CommissionerNeil Scales, Merseytravel, and CfIT CommissionerHarry Bush, Civil Aviation Authority, and CfIT CommissionerPeter Blake, South Gloucester County CouncilNigel Dotchin, Department for TransportSteven Salmon, Confederation of Passenger TransportDavid Farmer, Department for TransportKylie Lovell, Department for Transport

CfIT would also like to thank the Strategic Advisor to the Working Group

Dr Corinne Mulley, Transport Operations Research Group, School of Civil Engineeringand Geosciences, Newcastle University


References

Brake, J F, C Mulley and J D Nelson (2006). Demand Responsive Transport Telematics:Good Practice Guide. Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Commission for Rural Communities (2007). State of the Countryside 2007. Cheltenham:Commission for Rural Communities.

Commission for Rural Communities (2008a). State of the Countryside 2008. Cheltenham:Commission for Rural Communities.

Commission for Rural Communities (2008b) Thinking about Rural Transport. Cheltenham:Commission for Rural Communities.

Department for Transport (2007a). Travel in Urban and Rural Areas: Personal TravelSheet. Available from www.dft.gov.uk.

Department for Transport (2007b) Towards a Sustainable Transport System: SupportingEconomic Growth in a Low Carbon World. London: TSO.

Department for Transport (2008). Local Bus Service Support – Options for Reform:Consultation Paper. London: Department for Transport.

Eddington, Sir Rod (2006). Eddington Transport Study: The case for action. London: TSO.

Institute for Transport Studies (2006). Option Values, Non-use Values and TransportAppraisal. Final Report to the Department for Transport. Leeds: University of Leeds.

LEK Consulting (2002). Obtaining Best Value for Public Subsidy for the Bus Industry.Available from www.cfit.gov.uk.

Mott MacDonald (2008).The Role of Taxis in Rural Public Transport. Available fromwww.cfit.gov.uk.

Mulley, Corinne (2007) Think piece on the role of taxis and private hire vehicles in rural areas.Available from www.cfit.gov.uk.

Mulley, Corinne (2008) Think piece on the role played by alternative forms of transportin rural areas to ‘meet the gap’ between taxis and conventional buses in rural areas.Available from www.cfit.gov.uk.

North West Centre of Excellence and Merseytravel (2007), Taxi Toolkit. A series ofarticles and information downloadable from www.nwiep.org.uk/transport/taxi-toolkit.php(accessed 16 September 2008).

OECD Proceedings (1996). Towards Sustainable Transportation. The Vancouver Conference.Conference organised by the OECD in Vancouver, British Columbia, 24–27 March.(Washington DC: OECD).

Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport andSocial Exclusion. London: Social Exclusion Unit.

Stern, Nicholas (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


This report highlights the transport difficulties faced by rural dwellers andassesses the role that shared-taxi schemes – or what CfIT has called ‘TaxiPlus’services – could have in meeting their needs. TaxiPlus schemes, whichalready operate in some rural areas of the UK and on a much larger scalein many parts of mainland Europe, are discussed in this report. Particularlysuccessful schemes operate in the Netherlands and Switzerland, wheresophisticated journey matching software is used to match people’s trips,and where significant economies of scale have been achieved. CfIT hasconcluded that we now need to trial a large-scale scheme in the UK toassess how TaxiPlus schemes could transform rural transport in the UKand address a worrying trend in rural social exclusion.

a new approach to rural public transport

Documents